I didn't know that yet, is it true? Then I don't need to wonder, why offline mode was quit. Technical reasons ... [Snip]. It exactly makes sense for my last post ...
Last edited by a moderator:
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I didn't know that yet, is it true? Then I don't need to wonder, why offline mode was quit. Technical reasons ... [Snip]. It exactly makes sense for my last post ...
My problem with that approach to any future KS is that, well I think that FD was an indie at the time.
I backed them (along with many others), only to find later that they decided on an IPO.
It seems a bit risky to back any other KS projects in future, as anyone indie may not stay that way during delivery (or non-delivery) of the project.
I feel happier sending my pennies the way of PledgeMusic or similar - my CDs haven't turned up with offline listening disabled so far
In fact, I wonder whether the FD promises (offline, DRM-free) being broken would actually bring KS into disrepute?
I believe FDEV was an established developer for quite some time before embarking on this project, IPO notwithstanding. They have a decent list of titles to their credit. However, I think FD is their first self published title to the best of my knowledge. This gave them considerable credibility to many of us and thus an advantage.
There is the occasional meritorious indie project that is worthy of respect.... Minecraft and KSP to name a couple. And I have much respect for Notch and Felipe for their honesty as well as their great games.
Last edited:
I don't think anything will top the job Notch did with Minecraft. Has there been much backlash within the Minecraft community with Notch selling to MSFT?
What a joke... I expected more from a company that got 1.5 million to get their project going. Supporting offline play was the supporting evidence that the game would be DRM-free. Without that support, requiring always-on connection is DRM*!!!!
Directly from KS FAQ
Will I need to connect to a server to play?
" Update! 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). ****Last updated: Tue, Dec 11 2012 1:56 AM PST****
"Will the game be DRM-free?
Yes, the game code will not include DRM (Digital Rights Management), but there will be server authentication when you connect for multiplayer and/or updates and to synchronise with the server. *****Last updated: Mon, Dec 10 2012 6:54 AM EST*****
Directly from KS FAQ
Will I need to connect to a server to play?
" Update! 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). ****Last updated: Tue, Dec 11 2012 1:56 AM PST****
"Will the game be DRM-free?
Yes, the game code will not include DRM (Digital Rights Management), but there will be server authentication when you connect for multiplayer and/or updates and to synchronise with the server. *****Last updated: Mon, Dec 10 2012 6:54 AM EST*****
wow really
I registered just to post this. I've been keeping an eye on this game for a while now (no I decide to not back anything on kickstarter because of reasons exactly like whats going on now). I was planning on purchasing when the game came out, but now I guess I'll just keep my money.
Here's hoping you change your stance in the future.
-1 sales
I registered just to post this. I've been keeping an eye on this game for a while now (no I decide to not back anything on kickstarter because of reasons exactly like whats going on now). I was planning on purchasing when the game came out, but now I guess I'll just keep my money.
Here's hoping you change your stance in the future.
-1 sales
I don't know as I don't interact with that community much any more. I have a server set up at home that my family logs into and uses. Personally, I don't see the MS takeover of MC as a bad thing as long as the older versions and Bukkit will remain available for those of us running private modded servers.
Count me in as another angry backer who was looking forward to offline more than online.
For everyone saying, "If you don't want to be affected by other players, just play solo!", have you considered that FD is forcing everyone to be online precisely so that the actions of all the other players will affect the entire gameworld? They said it themselves, they want the galaxy simulation to be driven by player action.
Being "affected" by other players is a lot more than just avoiding player pirates and unwanted dogfights. Found a sweet trade route that you want to exploit? That's great, but if you log off and then come back a few days later when you get some more time to play, there'll be dozens of other players who will have found it and flipped the market upside down because, surprise, FD is forcing you to use the same market simulation as all the open-play people.
Want to go exploring and make your fortune as a deep-space explorer? That's great, but you better hurry up because the explored-system database is going to be getting filled up with the thousands of other players all expanding outwards at the same time, so when you come back to the game after a week of working long hours, that stellar cluster you had your eyes on will already be fully explored.
Want to become a big asteroid miner, searching for that elusive motherlode of valuable ore? That's great, but when you find that asteroid belt glittering with riches you better hurry up and mine it as fast as you can before someone you never see or interact with in any other way comes along and mines it out from under you.
THAT is why people are upset about no offline play (not counting the thousands of people who have legitimate connectivity issues, because not everyone enjoys a First World always-on broadband experience). THAT is what people are talking about when they say they just want to play by themselves and not have to deal with other people. All "solo online" mode achieves is removing the ability to get your ship blown up by other players. You'll still be dealing with them in every other way.
Honestly, I have to wonder if all the people talking about how "Kickstarter isn't a guarantee" and "game development is hard" would be so glib if instead of trashing offline play, FD had come out last Friday and said, "Hey guys, we really tried, but it looks like the game will only work with a maximum of three players per instance, sorry" or "We did our best, but the game engine is only going to allow a maximum of four different ships in the game ever so that's the decision we made."
For everyone saying, "If you don't want to be affected by other players, just play solo!", have you considered that FD is forcing everyone to be online precisely so that the actions of all the other players will affect the entire gameworld? They said it themselves, they want the galaxy simulation to be driven by player action.
Being "affected" by other players is a lot more than just avoiding player pirates and unwanted dogfights. Found a sweet trade route that you want to exploit? That's great, but if you log off and then come back a few days later when you get some more time to play, there'll be dozens of other players who will have found it and flipped the market upside down because, surprise, FD is forcing you to use the same market simulation as all the open-play people.
Want to go exploring and make your fortune as a deep-space explorer? That's great, but you better hurry up because the explored-system database is going to be getting filled up with the thousands of other players all expanding outwards at the same time, so when you come back to the game after a week of working long hours, that stellar cluster you had your eyes on will already be fully explored.
Want to become a big asteroid miner, searching for that elusive motherlode of valuable ore? That's great, but when you find that asteroid belt glittering with riches you better hurry up and mine it as fast as you can before someone you never see or interact with in any other way comes along and mines it out from under you.
THAT is why people are upset about no offline play (not counting the thousands of people who have legitimate connectivity issues, because not everyone enjoys a First World always-on broadband experience). THAT is what people are talking about when they say they just want to play by themselves and not have to deal with other people. All "solo online" mode achieves is removing the ability to get your ship blown up by other players. You'll still be dealing with them in every other way.
Honestly, I have to wonder if all the people talking about how "Kickstarter isn't a guarantee" and "game development is hard" would be so glib if instead of trashing offline play, FD had come out last Friday and said, "Hey guys, we really tried, but it looks like the game will only work with a maximum of three players per instance, sorry" or "We did our best, but the game engine is only going to allow a maximum of four different ships in the game ever so that's the decision we made."
Exactly this. This conveys a good portion of why I am really pushing them for a refund. I've been getting the same copy pasted response as everyone else.
Just pre-order, no beta access, so my case was a lot easier. I wonder if people who tried the beta is able to get a refund.
But that ISN'T what they said. I'm seeing the majority of rage posts made by a minority of posters, including a significant proportion of those being nice shiny new forum accounts. Holding up another straw man isn't going to make the facts any different. Maybe, just for a moment, it's possible to consider that DB was telling the truth that they tried to make it work right all the way up to the threshold of gamma release and eventually had to conclude that it wouldn't work? So they told us - probably knowing what kind of brown tornado was going to result
Online rage at this stage is less than constructive. If you can live with it as it is, play on. If you cannot, farewell. If you want to extract any money you put in the game, deal with the legal realities and go for it if you know or think you're entitled to something.
The rest of us will be either doing fine or living with a game that - while not including some thing we want - is still a game we want to play.
+1 - You hit the nail on the head with your assessment! FD is about to take this from bad to worse if it doesn't refund KS/Store backers who request it.
They can't have it both ways. Either stick to your campaign promises (which are what compelled people to fund the project), or offer refunds to those who ask for it when you bail on those promises.
Bail early if you have to, so you shed the people for whom the game you're now making isn't the game they want to fund/play. But you don't get to rattle off a list of stuff, each of which motivates different people to different degrees to decide to fund you, and then just ditch parts of that list at the end.
And I get that development can't be 100% predicted. That's why I'm saying they have to be proactive about these decisions AND allow for KS/Store refunds when requested.
You either allow for refunds, or you make damn sure you only promise things in your KS/Store campaign that you're actually doing to deliver, so that those who fund your project can trust that they're not standing on a rug that's going to get yanked out from under them at the end.
And for those who say, "but this isn't a store, it's an investor platform". That's disingenuous. Investors get to influence, if not outright dictate, business decisions. At no point was I or any other KS backer (the 'investors') consulted about whether they should drop offline support or soften their DRM-free commitment.
I wasn't trying to make a strawman argument, I was making a comment on all the people who have basically just been shrugging and saying, "Who cares about offline? I only play online lol." I was making a comment on the amazing lack of simple empathy I've seen in the vast majority of posts defending FD's decision.
Sure, I do believe that FD tried their best to make offline work. But maybe, just for a moment, is it possible to ask that when FD started seeing the cracks appearing in offline mode months ago (and surely they did know a long time before last Friday that offline mode was in trouble) that they could have come to the community and/or the design forum and said, "Hey guys, we're having a really hard time getting this whole offline thing to work right and at the rate we're going it's debatable whether or not it'll make it into the game at all. Will you guys accept an offline mode that's more limited than online, or should we just ditch it entirely?"
Instead they made a major decision about a major game feature with zero warning or customer input. They've been taking feedback from the community for 23 months over all sorts of other things. Supercruise ring any bells? Nobody backed and preordered the game because they wanted to see FTL-ish travel inside a system, but a whole lot of people backed/preordered it for offline play.
I wish others would see things the way I do. I dearly wish all the best of Elite Dangerous the game, but I cannot defend what Frontier Developments the company has done. Even if I apply hanlon's razor to the whole mess then I would deem FDEV guilty of some of the worst communications skills ever displayed by a company since EA and Maxis, and that truly takes effort.
Still, these days I keep things low profile, I get involved with small projects, where the number of testers is low, and the number of developers is small, and the turnaround cycle is minimal to begin with, stay simple, aim modest, and you generally get what you try for. Sometimes you even get more than you hoped for, sometimes you even get to help the developers find solutions they might not have seen, sometimes they teach you how to look at things in a new way, and all of it is worth a lot more than the monetary value of the investment you put in.
I think with what David's done and with FDEV playing legal weasels, my days of backing larger projects are well and truly over. Even if I stick with it and play the final result, this has left a distinctly ashen taste in my mouth, and I feel that somewhere the spirit of Elite, where a galaxy could live on a BBC Micro, has got lost in the rush to throw in as many weeble buzzwords as FDEV could cram in to seem relevant to today's market.
Yes... their silence speaks volume. Beside the point this situation is very simple... they can't have it both ways. Eather stick to your campaign promises (which are what compelled people to fund 1.5 dollars to their project) or offer refund to those who ask for it when you bail on those promises.
And this is a fair point. I, too, would have preferred to see in a newsletter or other FD posting "Hey, guys.. offline mode is in trouble.. we might have to cut it. We'll make it for you if we can but it's not looking likely" before it got to the stage of "Sorry, dudes, it's history" - but that's water under the bridge at this point.
Water under the bridge? I guess that's easy for you to say. What about the guy who pledged $5k because he expected offline no connection play? That's a lot of water under that bridge.
IT's even worse when you consider how many backers this game has compared to a certain other game that I won't mention by name. That means people had to drop a [Redacted] TON of pounds on it to meet that requirement.
It has only just begun...
- Status