I'm certain it's probably a PITA. But they should have been designing the game for it's stated core features, one of those being DRM-free offline mode, not solo always-online with login.
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I'm certain it's probably a PITA. But they should have been designing the game for it's stated core features, one of those being DRM-free offline mode, not solo always-online with login.
Dunnoh .. I just mod here..I tell you what though, If you need to ask someone, the best people is definitely the sales support, customer support guys who work for Frontier.
Im just a voluntary mod, trying to help keep this place friendly, and pleasant..
For the most part it is. Only 5 people have been so vile that I felt the need to ignore them. So far.
Dunnoh .. I just mod here..
Im just a voluntary mod, trying to help keep this place friendly, and pleasant..
No reasonable person here would think otherwise psykokow, you guys do a great job, like all good forum mods.
As a large backer of this game I am rather fuming at FD about this issue though.
Last edited:
...Then look again! -
"How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?"
"The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer. The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing. 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)."
... Notice the part where they EXPLICITLY said "WILL"???????
Firstly, I am a recent adopter that has been following in earnest but didn't join until fairly recently so I will not pretend to understand the feelings of those who adopted early expecting fully fledged single player.
Secondly, I have read through this thread but it's certainly possible that I've missed or misunderstood some of the posts.
I am genuinely trying to understand and respect all sides of the argument but if I may:
Until we know EXACTLY what "from time to time" means, isn't this a bit alarmist? If you have zero internet access you certainly have room to be upset, perhaps you intended to visit a friend or the library to install and never expected to take it online again except to patch when necessary. But just because each time you trade a commodity it connects to the server now, does not indicate that it will bee necessary to do so in the final product. Since y aren't part of the galactic economy when in single play I don't expect it to be necessary. Missions shouldn't need this either. I would imagine that galactic news and story updates are likely to be the culprits, but we don't know yet, if so I expect they will be infrequent compared with the expectations that it seems most of us have.
I'm not invalidating anyone's concerns, I just suggest we all keep an open mind until we have definitive information and reasons not to.
And to everyone who is expecting, no demanding, everyone to share their opinions - you are the only ones that are decidedly wrong. You don't have to agree but that doesn't mean their feelings are wrong.
Secondly, I have read through this thread but it's certainly possible that I've missed or misunderstood some of the posts.
I am genuinely trying to understand and respect all sides of the argument but if I may:
Until we know EXACTLY what "from time to time" means, isn't this a bit alarmist? If you have zero internet access you certainly have room to be upset, perhaps you intended to visit a friend or the library to install and never expected to take it online again except to patch when necessary. But just because each time you trade a commodity it connects to the server now, does not indicate that it will bee necessary to do so in the final product. Since y aren't part of the galactic economy when in single play I don't expect it to be necessary. Missions shouldn't need this either. I would imagine that galactic news and story updates are likely to be the culprits, but we don't know yet, if so I expect they will be infrequent compared with the expectations that it seems most of us have.
I'm not invalidating anyone's concerns, I just suggest we all keep an open mind until we have definitive information and reasons not to.
And to everyone who is expecting, no demanding, everyone to share their opinions - you are the only ones that are decidedly wrong. You don't have to agree but that doesn't mean their feelings are wrong.
Have they promised planetary landings? Did they promise to actually give you ANYTHING? Those who can only play offline have effectively given money, and now been told, "Nah, we're not giving you anything. Thanks for the backing!"
From time to time = every time you buy, sell, save, kill, get killed, change status, change ranking, change system, dock, and I think exit supercruise.
Well.. that was quite the read.
Sadly, I must conclude that the trust I had in Frontier Development was misplaced.
I will offer this advice to F.D. : stop decieving your customers, it is bad for business in the long run. You will now have a monumental task of rebuilding the trust and confidence of the people that are paying your wages.
And why then, is that the case ??
Withholding critical informations about product limitations until this late in the process, and then...
Masking the information as a side comment in what was probably the most expected newsletter in a long time.
And then proceeding to be borderline rude in official responses certainly does not make the picture people see any prettier.
A very disappointed customer.
Sadly, I must conclude that the trust I had in Frontier Development was misplaced.
I will offer this advice to F.D. : stop decieving your customers, it is bad for business in the long run. You will now have a monumental task of rebuilding the trust and confidence of the people that are paying your wages.
And why then, is that the case ??
Withholding critical informations about product limitations until this late in the process, and then...
Masking the information as a side comment in what was probably the most expected newsletter in a long time.
And then proceeding to be borderline rude in official responses certainly does not make the picture people see any prettier.
A very disappointed customer.
No reasonable person here would think otherwise psykokow, you guys do a great job, like all good forum mods.
As a large backer of this game though I am rather fuming at FD about this issue though.
I am a big backer too, so it is a major announcement... and should be given the scrutiny it is getting here, and Frontier need to know the scale of unhappiness its caused.
It may not change anything, but at least they will be able to see the effect...
I know people who backed purely for the single player offline mode... and they are very frustrated and disappointed.
a pre-order with beta access is still retail
I bet what Michael said bout an offline being impossible is utter tripe. Sure a offline version of the online wouldn't be feasible. But impossible for a dumbed down static Elite dangerous has my greatest doubts.
It also stated it was a pre-order, which has a feature list at time of purchase nothing to do with beta, this directly applies to what people are saying where it explicitly mentioned offline.
Quote Kickstarter.
"The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers."
on the whole, Elite has delivered on what they offered, but taking offline out of the equation does indeed open them to legal action.
.
"The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers."
on the whole, Elite has delivered on what they offered, but taking offline out of the equation does indeed open them to legal action.
.
Last edited:
Did you just read one word and no context?
You can't take your character online (we'll investigate) and you won't get the evolving galaxy (we'll investigate) but crucially "it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."
As mentioned, it's been talked about numerous times since by the devs on here.
At no point, not even during the DDF, was it ever even hinted at that this was going to be an (insurmountable) problem.
Tar Stone
Banned
I hadn't appreciated that offline was a huge deal to early KS backers. There's another thread slipping away with more infos about that. I appreciate that old-school locking yourself away with Elite, I really do. I understand why there was a passionate crusade for offline and frankly, with people putting KS money in on promises of that, well, that's a mess right there.
However - my experience with what they are doing with the online galaxy has offered up a couple of really amazing moments that just won't happen offline, stuff I didn't expect, and stuff that just sort of evolved. That being the case, they took the right decision to go hell for leather in that direction, because nobody else is doing it, or could get it right if they were.
If the team aren't excited by the offline system, they wouldn't put anywhere near as much effort into it as the stuff they are excited about.
Honestly, and off-topic - I think they should scrap the walking about malarkey now, and focus on planetary landings next year.
However - my experience with what they are doing with the online galaxy has offered up a couple of really amazing moments that just won't happen offline, stuff I didn't expect, and stuff that just sort of evolved. That being the case, they took the right decision to go hell for leather in that direction, because nobody else is doing it, or could get it right if they were.
If the team aren't excited by the offline system, they wouldn't put anywhere near as much effort into it as the stuff they are excited about.
Honestly, and off-topic - I think they should scrap the walking about malarkey now, and focus on planetary landings next year.
Of course it's not "impossible" - they could do anything they wanted to. But, working for a developer myself, I'm not going to say it's easy. However, if they truly intended ever to support offline, it shouldn't be that hard because every design decision should have been made with offline consideration. UNLESS they never intended to support offline, or decided quite some time ago not to, in which case, the news has been given very much later than it should have been.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
AGAIN - NOTHING TO DO WITH KICKSTARTER. People who bought from the dev directly a matter of weeks ago were still being told about offline mode.
There is no technical reason for not being able to port their server code to Windows/Mac/Linux, assuming it doesn't even already run on one of these operating systems. As you have rightly guessed it is a political/financial/DRM/anti-cheating/protecting IP/etc decision.
Worst case they'd have to remove a lot of encryption, authentication and possibly database stuff, but the basic network architecture could stay the same, just like has been done in one hundred+ other games.
Then the client and server could sit on the same machine, or you could run the server on a dedicated box and have it hosting your own local private LAN, once again as has been done in one hundred+ other games.
My guess is that this client-side server code has been developed in parallel for the entire development cycle and was pulled very late in the process. FD have been remarkably transparent in all of their development process and I find it hard to stomach that they have known for months, or even longer, that there would be no offline mode.
Why it was pulled, (assuming my guess is accurate), could be for any number of reasons, (see above), or even just as they said, it became financially/resource nonviable to maintain.
This doesn't stop them from developing it in the future, what saddens me is that there is no inkling of this type of future from any of the FD developers; i.e. the transparency is finally starting to murk over.
Back in the day late 2012 / early 2013 I was surprised about how many of the original backers were planning to only play offline.
This is a really shabby way for FD to replay their support.
You don't know that.
- Status