No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Unless your using the mobile version of the website on the phone, its down on the bottom left of the post. Just be careful not to accidentally hit report
If your not on the full version, you can switch to it in your settings if need be.
So, small but vocal... check.
So no pandering to offline wanting folks... check
But you want them to pay for something which differs from how it was described and intended just so you can enjoy future content?
No disrespect intended here, I'm tired... but it seems rather selfish of you, don't you think? Surely you can sympathise with some of the people in this thread.. surely?
I'm also assuming you have read the thread and not just jumped in on page 70ish.
Edit: I don't agree with charge backs without first giving FD a chance.. just to clarify. But FD should honour refund requests at the very least, for those that want one. I don't.
Last edited:
See my above reply. It's now 5am, I'm tired and things are heated here.
If you haven't read my other earlier posts, especially the one on software management then I'd implore you to and come back.
Also you maybe did miss my sympathetic posts? I too would like solo offline, for different reasons certainly, however I am being pragmatic.
The last thing I would add is that anyone you see here today, like me, who is passionate about this is because we ALL want the game to succeed - solo offline mode or not. We want Frontier to succeed in bringing us the game we have dreamed off since childhood - and a few people on here seem to also be selfishly determined to take that away.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well now I feel you are being rather personal. I'd ask you to stop, but I don't think you will.
Priceless.
Do you really not get it? It's simple. Some people won't be able to play this game. They bought it thinking it had offline play. They are upset. Although they are entitled to their money back, they are also upset because they were looking forward to playing it. How is that being selfish?
It's not about you, Titus.
No, still not the same thing, because a static galaxy with no price changes, no server simulation, no injected events, no new missions, etc. doesn't really sound like it would have any sweet spots anyway. It would have been very samey. So what's to hide? Even the discovery mechanism would have had it so that new objects not yet found by the player would still be discoverable but not really ruin anything for anybody. That's not the same thing as what was suggested to Michael Brookes, which appeared to entail downloading or at least accessing the entire simulation on the server (something they never promised).
I remain hopeful they can deliver such a static galaxy for those who pledged the game for one. But I understand why from the get-go of the original Kickstarter they never wanted to simply make an identical galaxy server complete with unlocked content available for download. That was never intended as is clear from the FAQ I quoted, "You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy," at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_42659
The trouble I've read was in separating the two, and the resources that needed to go into creating the static galaxy. I hope they can find a way to separate them. If that means they need to remove the big reveals and deliver a watered down galaxy -- all that was ever promised to begin with -- it sounds that fully offline users would be content with that.
Last edited:
I have read every single post on this thread (ouch) lol, even watched your informative video.
I want FD to succeed with ED too, but this decision and the way they went about announcing it won't help that.
However saying people want to selfishly take it away I cannot agree with... it's because its no longer a product they will be able to use as they intended / researched to find out it would be a possibility . A number of your posts "seemed" quite ignorant of the issues some people have in relation to this. Not all admittedly, but I will point to this one..
Some people bought Elite Dangerous hoping to play offline due to their circumstances, and did so with valid information up until today's announcement. They didn't buy it to read a book or play something else.
I'm going to hit the hay anyway... g'night CMDR's
Edit: moved the bold part because it was in the wrong place and made literally no sense
Last edited:
I have thought about it for a few hours and I won’t ask for a refund for one reason; pretty sure I could get one to. They have been back peddling and struggling for months now. I think they are trying to meet an arbitrary deadline and or they are running out of funds. It’s quite simple as it is now they don’t have a choice but to do this.
If we wanted a single player game then it should have been single player only, the combination of both would make the game lacking. From a developer stand point they know that the community is going to be angry but if they want to have jobs after the next 2 months they need to start cutting things.
There private investor(s) have given them a date, and they expect their money back, otherwise Frontier could go bankrupt. Why we are being given the run around; because in the gaming industry you never say the above.
This is understandable but not really acceptable in my eyes.
If we wanted a single player game then it should have been single player only, the combination of both would make the game lacking. From a developer stand point they know that the community is going to be angry but if they want to have jobs after the next 2 months they need to start cutting things.
There private investor(s) have given them a date, and they expect their money back, otherwise Frontier could go bankrupt. Why we are being given the run around; because in the gaming industry you never say the above.
This is understandable but not really acceptable in my eyes.
Last edited:
We put our faith in FD to design, implement, and then release a game which would work in an OFFLINE manner.
Without this promise from FD, many would not have supported the KS, but with that support based on faith, it helped secure the successful funding of the Kickstarter. Indeed, as the KS only just succeeded, the question exists to whether the game would have even been funded without such support. In the following two years, we continued supporting them, both financially and through free marketting, even though the project went beyond the expected release date.
Now, a mere week before the gamma release date, we are told the impossible, in an inexcusable manner. As many know, two-way communication has never been one of FD's strong points, but to slip this news in the newsletter in the classic manner of 'move along people, nothing to see here' is pure FD. To slip it in so late in the development process questions their moral standards.
OK, they have changed their minds and its rather pointless? to try to create an online forum petition to try to get them to change it back.
As it is FD who have failed to deliver the offline version, they should at least offer a refund to customers who want it. If not, this is going to get very messy, very quickly.
Guess the offline version was doomed to fail from the start.
“Elite is a connected world, that’s the point,” <David Braben> shrugs. “I think sometimes the games industry can be a little bit myopic – the whole furore about whether the machines are always-on or not…that doesn’t matter. It’s a bit like saying, is your television always on? Or is your iPhone always on? It’s up to the games whether they use these services or not. Some games work standalone and some need a connection.
”Elite will also work offline but you just won’t get a lot of the features. The whole point is that the world evolves due to the aggregated actions of the players.”
Without this promise from FD, many would not have supported the KS, but with that support based on faith, it helped secure the successful funding of the Kickstarter. Indeed, as the KS only just succeeded, the question exists to whether the game would have even been funded without such support. In the following two years, we continued supporting them, both financially and through free marketting, even though the project went beyond the expected release date.
Now, a mere week before the gamma release date, we are told the impossible, in an inexcusable manner. As many know, two-way communication has never been one of FD's strong points, but to slip this news in the newsletter in the classic manner of 'move along people, nothing to see here' is pure FD. To slip it in so late in the development process questions their moral standards.
OK, they have changed their minds and its rather pointless? to try to create an online forum petition to try to get them to change it back.
As it is FD who have failed to deliver the offline version, they should at least offer a refund to customers who want it. If not, this is going to get very messy, very quickly.
Guess the offline version was doomed to fail from the start.
“Elite is a connected world, that’s the point,” <David Braben> shrugs. “I think sometimes the games industry can be a little bit myopic – the whole furore about whether the machines are always-on or not…that doesn’t matter. It’s a bit like saying, is your television always on? Or is your iPhone always on? It’s up to the games whether they use these services or not. Some games work standalone and some need a connection.
”Elite will also work offline but you just won’t get a lot of the features. The whole point is that the world evolves due to the aggregated actions of the players.”
they could add some single player tutorial missions? that way you can train while offline. maybe with a dmaller sterile chunk of the universe...
or they could make two single player modes:
online and
- offline
the offline character being separate. and with the option to sync universe if player wants. if not then he can only find what was already found - if thats the reason for forced online...
or they could make two single player modes:
online and
- offline
the offline character being separate. and with the option to sync universe if player wants. if not then he can only find what was already found - if thats the reason for forced online...
Last edited:
Hello, made a forum account just to comment. I am someone who bought into the 75$ Beta.
I really, really like the game, but I am getting a little worried as I feel like Frontiers rush to the finish line will only hurt everyone involved with the game. I judge this on my experience with another Kickstarter game called Planetary Annihilation, which also launched without an offline play feature, despite one being promised. When that game came out it did not function very well since the servers that the company, Uber Entertainment were running were not able to keep up with the task of maintaining an always online game. The shaky launch of that game firmly split the community in two, those upset that the game was launched in such a state, and those defending the game. It's also worth noting that the game was very buggy and in my opinion, just not very good. In the end a Offline version of the game was released, but i don't know if that helped matters since i pretty much gave up on that game entirely and so did most of the community, Uber attempted a second Kickstarter for a new game called Human Resources, but I suspect that many people distrusted them and they didn't meet their funding goal.
There was concerns in the forums prior to the games launch pointing out that the game was not ready, concerns which turned out quite accurate.
I am a little worried about Elite: Dangerous since i see a similar chain of events playing out, and I would like to believe that it won't happen like that, but still I remain cautious.
I really, really like the game, but I am getting a little worried as I feel like Frontiers rush to the finish line will only hurt everyone involved with the game. I judge this on my experience with another Kickstarter game called Planetary Annihilation, which also launched without an offline play feature, despite one being promised. When that game came out it did not function very well since the servers that the company, Uber Entertainment were running were not able to keep up with the task of maintaining an always online game. The shaky launch of that game firmly split the community in two, those upset that the game was launched in such a state, and those defending the game. It's also worth noting that the game was very buggy and in my opinion, just not very good. In the end a Offline version of the game was released, but i don't know if that helped matters since i pretty much gave up on that game entirely and so did most of the community, Uber attempted a second Kickstarter for a new game called Human Resources, but I suspect that many people distrusted them and they didn't meet their funding goal.
There was concerns in the forums prior to the games launch pointing out that the game was not ready, concerns which turned out quite accurate.
I am a little worried about Elite: Dangerous since i see a similar chain of events playing out, and I would like to believe that it won't happen like that, but still I remain cautious.
That's not the big elephant in the room. Moving goal posts is a natural thing in software development, but that's supposed to happen before you sell copies of the product based on a feature list.
This news was announced just today, after weeks and months of a heavy push to get people to buy into the Beta, based on a feature list that included Offline play. To anyone not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, the timing of the news suggests that they knew this feature would be cut, and they continued to promote the feature anyway to make pre-release sales.
It may not have been that deliberate. It may have just been someone at FD's office suddenly waking up and saying "Uh, did anyone get around to announcing that we took Solo Offline off the table a while back?" followed by "I thought you were going to do that? No, you were going to!" and then "Quick, get the marketing guy to write something for the newsletter before this hits the fan!!"
Whether it was intentional or just lack of communication, it's still a terrible P.R. move for the company.
Idea for a limited offline game.
The Introduction:
How about a fully offline game that stores a static image of the persistent online game. The offline game is played separately, no option to play online with the character. The offline game is also limited in size, restrict the exploration to a bubble or pill like the beta versions of the game.
The Details:
If the offline version is static so that only data can be viewed rather than the simulation methods and potential outcomes of an action. (Do not use the procedural generation for this, store the co-ordinates, type, planets, faction, market with hard values.)
The play area should also be restricted in the same way as the beta.
This will both; restrict the file size for the static image, and mean there is no risk of reveal things happening in far off star systems is someone were to look at the code. In fact if someone were to look at the code they will only be able to determine information for the already explored systems like location, type, faction, market price, (might want to remove the dark systems and the like, though).
The commodity market should have frozen prices but should refresh quantities each time the system is entered rather than relying on the background simulation. Faction reputation could be calculated and updated, this could be stored on the client. This would allow the feeling of involvement even if it is superficial, friendly/unfriendly NPCs.
If someone were to edit the code, there would be no effect on the persistent universe. They could experience flying in an anaconda or trying other play styles, but nothing that could give them an advantage online. This could allow mods as well; custom planets, locations, events, ship values (invincible sidewinder with a 100 ton cargo bay anyone?), again none of this effecting any other players.
Conclusion:
A limited, Elite: Dangerous game that will take up less than 1000 TB, (average data per system X number of systems + gameplay mechanics + Models + save). Have a frozen image of the current online game that does not reveal the simulation process or hidden/special events. Have a faction reputation stored locally with superficial outcomes. Allow players to mod and to try ridiculous things on a local scale without any effect on the online game. Allows players to experience the game play in a restricted offline environment for those on the move, in a plane, under the sea, on a mine or in a cave.
Recommendation:
A more limited version of this could be used as a demo, perhaps the size of beta 1.
I have thought this through, but as I don't work at frontier my knowledge is limited. Also as I have spent a long time writing this post, someone else may have had the same idea.
The Introduction:
How about a fully offline game that stores a static image of the persistent online game. The offline game is played separately, no option to play online with the character. The offline game is also limited in size, restrict the exploration to a bubble or pill like the beta versions of the game.
The Details:
If the offline version is static so that only data can be viewed rather than the simulation methods and potential outcomes of an action. (Do not use the procedural generation for this, store the co-ordinates, type, planets, faction, market with hard values.)
The play area should also be restricted in the same way as the beta.
This will both; restrict the file size for the static image, and mean there is no risk of reveal things happening in far off star systems is someone were to look at the code. In fact if someone were to look at the code they will only be able to determine information for the already explored systems like location, type, faction, market price, (might want to remove the dark systems and the like, though).
The commodity market should have frozen prices but should refresh quantities each time the system is entered rather than relying on the background simulation. Faction reputation could be calculated and updated, this could be stored on the client. This would allow the feeling of involvement even if it is superficial, friendly/unfriendly NPCs.
If someone were to edit the code, there would be no effect on the persistent universe. They could experience flying in an anaconda or trying other play styles, but nothing that could give them an advantage online. This could allow mods as well; custom planets, locations, events, ship values (invincible sidewinder with a 100 ton cargo bay anyone?), again none of this effecting any other players.
Conclusion:
A limited, Elite: Dangerous game that will take up less than 1000 TB, (average data per system X number of systems + gameplay mechanics + Models + save). Have a frozen image of the current online game that does not reveal the simulation process or hidden/special events. Have a faction reputation stored locally with superficial outcomes. Allow players to mod and to try ridiculous things on a local scale without any effect on the online game. Allows players to experience the game play in a restricted offline environment for those on the move, in a plane, under the sea, on a mine or in a cave.
Recommendation:
A more limited version of this could be used as a demo, perhaps the size of beta 1.
I have thought this through, but as I don't work at frontier my knowledge is limited. Also as I have spent a long time writing this post, someone else may have had the same idea.
How can waiting be difficult? CIG have given their backers enough waiting to enter endgame levels already.
Internet connection is a quality of life thing for me so I do not think I will be affected by offline mode.
However, this last newsletter reeked of self entitled market speak. It was a bit self congratulatory for my tastes. A newsletter published by the game developers should not thank the game developers for a job well done. Posting a link or a quote of someone outside the company saying "Job well done" might be in order, but really... That newsletter put a foul taste in my mouth.
I can see why people are upset about the whole "no offline thing"
However, this last newsletter reeked of self entitled market speak. It was a bit self congratulatory for my tastes. A newsletter published by the game developers should not thank the game developers for a job well done. Posting a link or a quote of someone outside the company saying "Job well done" might be in order, but really... That newsletter put a foul taste in my mouth.
I can see why people are upset about the whole "no offline thing"
According to Mr Brookes, their decision has nothing to do with resources.
This decision could even cost resources. They will get slammed in the media if they have inadequate servers post-release, and adequate 24/7 servers cost resources.
Well, it's an interesting question.
Someone said that the offline single player feature was promoted on the store site during the beta. Can you find it?
http://web.archive.org/web/20141008055733/https://store.zaonce.net/
When did the zaonce site go live? April? May? I can understand why it would be important for that kind of 'proof' for those who bought into the game after this time, had the store had any mention at that time (which it didnt) that online only was the only way, but it was clearly stated in the KS years before zaonce ever came online that offline was a feature. There shouldn't be any ifs and buts about this.
There was even a thread asking for clarification from a moderator about offline mode in November 2012, where executive producer Michael responded with
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2913&page=3
ANYONE doing any research on this particular element would have found a lot of horses mouth evidence that offline mode would be in, and would have found NOTHING at all that it would not be included until Friday, a few weeks before release.
Lets all stop with the questions about proof. It is all there from Kickstarter onwards, all clearly pointing towards offline mode without question.
Last edited:
And how will those same people, with bandwidth caps, enjoy playing Star Citizen more? All this push for "higher fidelity", "better textures", "forced frames", "locked experience in multiplayer" simply results in even more bandwidth useage. I can't imagine their bills will get any lighter.
- Status