Yes people love to moan; but FD has lost a large amount of (trust), letting this decision out this way...
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Yes people love to moan; but FD has lost a large amount of (trust), letting this decision out this way...
I'm not so sure to be honest. I think this is just a manifestation of Braben's 'vision' i.e. it's going to be how he wants it to be and that, really, is pretty much that.
-
It's a bit of a shame because I always, perhaps naively, thought that this would be a community-led game to an extent where we could influence the systemic framework as opposed to campaigning (albeit successfully), for example, to make sure that space is black, not blue, and the more aesthetic elements of the game.
-
As I said earlier, I'm not bothered by online-only (although I understand the frustration of the minority who are). My concern is that we're heading into the realms where the shareholders are calling the shots e.g. unavoidable subscription fees because you're locked into online play, exclusive paid-for items, in-game adverts for Coca-Cola and Windows etc. Slightly uber-fatalistic maybe, but as we've seen today, they've no qualms about changing their minds about what people believe to be fundamental elements to the game.
-
I hope I'm proven wrong anyway.
Problem is that definition "quite early during development" just don't fit here. Background sim are still getting developed heavily in background even at this moment. Most likely leading up to the gamma FD devs were tasked of trying to get minimal sim version together with client. They most likely discovered that to get minimal acceptable performance they have to gut almost everything, which turned out to be unacceptable. I guess next meeting was either to redesign offline mode, forking special sim and making modes essentially incompatible, introducing not only support nightmare, but also yielding very little benefits.
There's no evidence either way (although the server platform being used could be, the fact is they could have developed multi-platform and just be using Amazon for their primary).
Some people will have a sense of grief over this, as some cannot play at all due to this... And have already paid. Anger is a normal thing to go through. I went through it initially but it was quickly overtaken by sadness that I wouldn't be able to share the ED experience with my brother the way I had intended to. People will say outlandish things, crazy things, immature things - it's all part of the process. (I moderate a forum, can you tell? lol) Nothing wrong with you pointing them out, but obviously try to accept that's how they feel, same as I'm trying to accept yours.
Prod me if I disagree like a madman. People have to talk it out, debate, some might cry openly and bare-chested hug each other.
I'm very sad that my ED experience has been changed in a way I didn't want it to be, but there's no anger at Frontier, anyone who disagrees with me, etc.But I'm certainly going to state how I feel and am spending my evening typing away about it.
I think a lot of people missed when Michael stated there wouldn't be offline mode, because they didn't want the secrets of the galaxy to get out, and not so much a technical issue.
I'm not so sure, but we could debate that one forever. It depends on their philosophy. Either way, I think a quick comment in a newsletter is unacceptable as a means to drop a core feature.
I read your entire post, but I'll just respond to your summary.
Using your Agile project management experience to explain a typical software development process to non software developers is a good idea, as it gives them an inkling into one of the ways that software projects are managed. (It's not the only way and there are many variations of it as well, for you non SW devs).
But in the end you are just guessing like the rest of us, you don't know whether offline mode was deprioritised late in the project cycle, scrapped half way through, trialled early on and dismissed or never even attempted. (I personally have faith in FD that it was as you suggest, but I am also a realist).
Using words like pandered gives the impression that you are pushing a MP agenda over the offline experience, of course FD have to make hard decisions when faced with the reality of what features to drop for release, but the reality now is that a significant, (where significant is >1), number of people now will NOT be able to play the game.
This is not pandering, it is not a trivial feature, it is not bells and whistles, it is not an elitist vocal minority request for a non foundation feature, it is a failing of the game to even function at a bare minimum for a certain percentage of it's already paid up users.
You can not and should not sugar coat this situation with:
- they may still be working on offline, it's just been deprioritised.
- they had to drop some features and MP was more important than offline.
- relasing ED with offline mode would delay the release for all users.
The reality is that now the game is broken for certain users; those who are not effected, mostly do not understand and mostly do not care and what's worse try and justify the decision, there is no justification, it's broken.
I'm not so sure, but we could debate that one forever. It depends on their philosophy. Either way, I think a quick comment in a newsletter is unacceptable as a means to drop a core feature.
I agree - but can you imagine the furore if they had announced that they had to drop online play instead?
Haha, because obviously, when people find new and interesting things in the game they won't be on here revealing what they've discovered!
-
Perhaps an in-game warning will flash up, "You have discovered Zoltan Shield technology. You are not allowed to mention this online; it's a secret!"
I'm not so sure, but we could debate that one forever. It depends on their philosophy. Either way, I think a quick comment in a newsletter is unacceptable as a means to drop a core feature.
I can agree to that - I like FD very much, and newsletter has lot of nice bits in it, but way this was communicated - and how worries about how feature complete ED 1.0 will be weren't answered - it new low for them. They need to get their communication in order. Heck, having separate section apologizing people would improve things. I don't blame David, he's busy man these days, he tried to be reasonable about this decision, but it came out not right.
I really hope they will learn from this mistake and how pressure about giving not that much stable, but feature complete and worthy title is something they should really need to concentrate on. Offline might be over, but game still needs to be delivered.
Wrong.
Probably not a great idea to embarrass yourself by by being snide. You do know that laws vary from country to country, right? I'm not sure where you are from, but that is just simply wrong under (my) local laws. By making the statements about 'laws' yourself, you imply that you are familiar with all the laws and marketplaces into which this game is sold? That may be the case, but almost certainly incorrect regarding laws made here locally.
"Games in development" or 'Games that are in Beta' have no special status that makes them exempt. Product is advertised as ABC, then XYZ is delivered, making it either 'false advertising' or 'mis-leading' (again, under local laws here).
Also, the word 'promise' has nothing to do with 'it'. The word 'claim' is what you're looking for, and yes, they did indeed 'claim' there would be an offline mode. A claim made in order that people buy their product.
I'm also not sure why you think that the game being in 'beta' provides an out. A product is a product, when it is sold to a consumer, then that's called 'retail' (under most jurisdictions). Again, I'm unsure why you believe your interpretation of the 'law' applies to all countries all of the time. That is indeed; patently incorrect.
It is you Sir, that might be embarrassing yourself, over a few separate posts it seems ..
I'm really surprised this has caused so much emotion and discussion. Other than the fact that it was advertised as having and offline mode and now it doesn't I don't really see the problem. It's unfortunate but why is it that it's causing o much upset? Is it that many of you don't have stable, always on, internet connections? If so, that's fair enough but I'd be surprised if this many people are in such a situation. You certainly have reliable enough connections to bang on about refunds.
I'm sure it was there but I didn't even notice any promise of an offline mode, I just don't see much point and would rather the budget go into other areas. I never play online multiplayer either. I only play solo. I hate PvP but I love the idea of real people influencing the living galaxy around me in way an AI never could and I have the bonus of never having to worry about being blown up by a playe for target practice.
Anyway, this whole thing smells a bit like the Sim City debarcle and EA have now remedied that situation. If EA can, I'm damn sure FD can and besides, ED benefits a lot more from commication with the outside world than Sim City ever did.
Good luck with your refunds. I just find it all a bit sad.
I'm sure it was there but I didn't even notice any promise of an offline mode, I just don't see much point and would rather the budget go into other areas. I never play online multiplayer either. I only play solo. I hate PvP but I love the idea of real people influencing the living galaxy around me in way an AI never could and I have the bonus of never having to worry about being blown up by a playe for target practice.
Anyway, this whole thing smells a bit like the Sim City debarcle and EA have now remedied that situation. If EA can, I'm damn sure FD can and besides, ED benefits a lot more from commication with the outside world than Sim City ever did.
Good luck with your refunds. I just find it all a bit sad.
Well I cannot believe I am typing this, but I will be contacting customer support first thing tomorrow for a full refund on all Elite Dangerous items I have thus far purchased. A game I cannot play for pretty much a full year is of absolutely no use to me whatsoever, especially as I have pumped the best part of £250 into it.
It's not about the Kickstarter. You pledge to Kickstarter, you take a risk as far as I'm concerned. There are people who have been misled. There are people who have pre-ordered a product on Frontier's own store (zaonce.com) when it clearly stated that the product would be playable offline. And by that you can infer at time of release because it did not explicitly say that part of the game may be delayed. These people, at least, are entitled to a refund. I also suspect that EU/UK consumer law also covers alpha/beta backers because, let's face it, they paid for something in a store and that thing is connected to the thing that has no offline mode.
In addition to this, it it possible that Frontier knew far in advance of Friday that there was not going to be an offline mode yet they chose to withhold this information and continue to make sales of the product based on the claim on the store that the game could be played offline. Yes, we don't know this for certain but it is the question to which I would most like to know the answer. What I find even more underhand is that they try and bury the information in the newsletter and attempt to cover it up with 25% insurance and 5 extra ship bling in the hope that it will soften the blow. And guess what, it just so happens that the newsletter is out on a Friday evening so they don't have to listen to us moan. Okay, Michael Brookes did give us some very curt answers (I particularly like the link to the refund page that basically states you can sod off) and then realised he was going to get lynched, sending in the underling to tell us to play nice then nothing. Nice one.
I'd just like to add that I'm not terribly bothered about Offline myself as I'm quite enjoying the game in Group mode at the moment. I do think, however, that those who really wanted and really needed Offline have been right royally shat on from a big height.
Last edited:
Could you point where such claim was made without conditions?
Quick FD, tell us not to fret and explain what happened, before it's too late.
Ok, lots of merging going on*, to help FD gauge the mood, so I'll take the opportunity to register my thoughts...
I am shocked and appalled at the timing and manner of communicating the fundamental changes to what will be delivered.
It's night in the UK, and it's the weekend, but this is an opportunity for FD to get a considered communication out (the sooner the better) to allay the fears circulating.
It would be good to explain what is not for launch vs. what is never going to happen, and some insight into the way the decisions were made, and when, please.
*I do think that lots of important points are going to get lost because of all of the merging going on - perhaps there should be a prominent summary allowed.
Ok, lots of merging going on*, to help FD gauge the mood, so I'll take the opportunity to register my thoughts...
I am shocked and appalled at the timing and manner of communicating the fundamental changes to what will be delivered.
It's night in the UK, and it's the weekend, but this is an opportunity for FD to get a considered communication out (the sooner the better) to allay the fears circulating.
It would be good to explain what is not for launch vs. what is never going to happen, and some insight into the way the decisions were made, and when, please.
*I do think that lots of important points are going to get lost because of all of the merging going on - perhaps there should be a prominent summary allowed.
With me, yes, the primary reason is unstable internet. Not for me, but for a couple of those I wanted to share the experience with. And the fact I persuaded them to buy a game based on the fact it would have offline, when now it won't.
the original Elite Dangerous Kickstarter. Scroll down to near the bottom where the FAQ sits and you will see this...
- Status