No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Volkira]

How could I express how sad this news makes me? I backed ED during the kickstarter campaign because I loved the original game, and I was so glad to be part of the opportunity of bringing a modern space sim to fruition, not the least being that M. Braben would be at the helm. The fact that I'd have the choice of online action when at home, and still be able to bring my laptop with me on holidays and still be able to play said space sim was a selling point to me. I'm not always online, and even then, it's sometimes quite spotty, to say the least. It's not a matter of having the found to finance a proper net connection, but a real issue with DSL deployment where I live.

I really wish that someone at Frontier will realize that everyone here doesn't necessarily have a net connection reliable enough for even periodic server sync, or at least allow for offline play even if no server sync has been done since a few days.

I plainly understand the rhetoric of quest writing quality and universe coherence that allow a centralized model, but i'd like to remind everyone that the original Elite series didn't have a central server, and it didn't prevent us from really enjoying the game.

If Frontier can't do without some kind of server sync, at least please make it optional, allowing us to not being locked out of the game we financed just because we're out of proper internet availability.

I guess your talking about Australia?
Australia would have to offer close to the worse Internet services in the World.
It's funny that most people are on less than 512k per sec and that those companies still don't provide unlimited downloads.

Australians pay top money for poor services.Most Australians are still on download limit packages.Once that limit is passed they are usually throttled down in speed.
The only infrastructure in Australia that offers 2 meg a sec (which is laughable) is in the biggest cities.

If I was living in Australia right now I too would be devastated by this news of no offline play.

 

[T@F]

Sorry, I not sure how that punishes anybody? If they paid for beta access (and used it) why should they get that back just because they decided to not get the final game? The cost of the final game is (right now £40) so it's fair they should get that back.
-
If I order a 3 course meal, eat the first two courses but decide that they don't have the one desert that I could eat (the others having dairy). Should I get the whole meal refunded or just the cost of the desert?

I think you will find we was testers for the game,devs would normally have to pay ppl to do that.
But instead they got ppl to test the game while they bought it up front.They got us testers for free.
So it worked both ways free testers to find the bugs for them while we played the beta i might add of the game we paid up front for.

It was not the full version so we did not have access to a full game,yet they had access to our full cost of the game.
Also while they gained interest off the cash they made as well so it was win win for the devs.
win lose for us,(well the ppl who was promised offline mode anyway)

 

[Adept]

Liqua is a particularly bizarre case. How do you jump from publicly and loudly proclaiming your intentions as an Open mode PvP pirate to demanding a refund over the lack of an off-line mode?

He's out of luck anyway, as KS is not refunded. I've never heard of that at least.

 

[eeps]

I guess your talking about Australia?
Australia would have to offer close to the worse Internet services in the World.
It's funny that most people are on less than 512k per sec and that those companies still don't provide unlimited downloads.

Australians pay top money for poor services.Most Australians are still on download limit packages.Once that limit is passed they are usually throttled down in speed.
The only infrastructure in Australia that offers 2 meg a sec (which is laughable) is in the biggest cities.

If I was living in Australia right now I too would be devastated by this news of no offline play.

all true, but you forgot the bit about we lock up people indefinately for fleeing warzones

 

[CMDRElJal]

I am a software developer.
There are are two kinds of features.
A) Promised features
B) Nice-to-have features.
If we say that "this feature will be in" then it will be in. The only exception would be technical difficultes (it can't be implemented) or financial difficultes (which would mean severe mismanagement on our part).
If nice-to-have features threaten promised features, we cut back on the nice-to-have features.

Offline play was a promised feature.
As is already confirmed, removing offline play was not due to technical problems but because of a design decision.

This would be an absolute no-go in our company!
Promised features have to be in, even if it means the whole product would not be as good as it could be because we have to cut back on the nice-to-have features.

I can't agree more and I can't understand why some of you defend them and you say that you will support their decision.
They have the obligation to implement all the promised features. They asked in Ks for Backers money and they should respect them.
They couldn't even start this project without their support.
It's not right and they can't decide on their own. Or else this is at least completely unprofessional.

 

[sbdags]

er.. i see your point im just not sure I agree ..

they paid so they could play for years .. not a few months

in AUD i paid $100, and i expected to play for years, so why should I lose most of that for the 'privelage' of playing for a few months, considering most of that time I was bug testing, and there were lots of bugs, so the game didnt work 'properly'.

you wont agree, and thats ok, i see your point, i just think you are being unfair to a group of people to whom just got let down and mis-led
( although I prefer the term 'ganked' )

Where does a few months come from? How do you know you won't be able to play for years?

It's 2014 - more and more software development is moving to cloud based solutions. The days of offline only gaming are coming to an end. You can fight it all you want but history tells us that when new technology comes in the world eventually moves on and gets on with it.

 

[eeps]

Where does a few months come from? How do you know you won't be able to play for years?

It's 2014 - more and more software development is moving to cloud based solutions. The days of offline only gaming are coming to an end. You can fight it all you want but history tells us that when new technology comes in the world eventually moves on and gets on with it.

think you might have missed the context .. go back a page or two to see the diatribe unfold ..

(the few months comes from the fact that some people have only played for a few months)

 

[beelbeebub]

I am a software developer.
There are are two kinds of features.
A) Promised features
B) Nice-to-have features.
If we say that "this feature will be in" then it will be in. The only exception would be technical difficultes (it can't be implemented) or financial difficultes (which would mean severe mismanagement on our part).
If nice-to-have features threaten promised features, we cut back on the nice-to-have features.

Offline play was a promised feature.
As is already confirmed, removing offline play was not due to technical problems but because of a design decision.

This would be an absolute no-go in our company!
Promised features have to be in, even if it means the whole product would not be as good as it could be because we have to cut back on the nice-to-have features.

I guess it comes down to what FD consider as promised and nice to have. Remember that this is not a typical software job with a client and a dev and an agreed upon contractual spec.
-
We are not the clients, we are backers. If we (the backers) had all pooled our money together, knocked up a spec and then gone to FD and said will you make this if we pay you, then we would be in control. We are backers though. FD were clear that they were going down this funding route to make the game they wanted to make without publishers getting in the way. We backed so that FD could make the game according to their vision (they've been crystal clear on this point). This means the FD control the specification, not the backers. Again this has been crystal clear throughout the dev process.
-
If you look at FD's web page and around the forum, the emphasis has always been on multiplayer (and by implication online). I would say that in FD's spec online is a promise, offline is a nice to have. FD have been clear that this was not an easy decision but in their technical opinion, offline could not be implemented and as a nice to have conflicting with a promised feature (online) it had to go. In FD's eyes they have made the decision according to your company rules.

 

[Kerrash]

Poll still in way :
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59287
View attachment 1583

Few people have voted compared to the number of customers/pledgers but its significant that there are 50% who dont agree with Frontier to not have offline mode.
This cant be hided .. even by whiteknights who defend Frontier (i understand it, even if i think some deserve Frontier instead of helping them).
I love Frontier, really, its a great company, but that dont mean i can accept all they decide when this decision is deserving the community.
Hope it will be listen and take in consideration.

It has been stated before that poll's are inaccurate and can be misinterpreted but at the risk of being slammed for saying this; I feel I must clarify.
13/251 of people who voted, claim they will not play at all. The remaining voters have voted to either not care or would prefer the feature comes at a later date.

 

[sbdags]

I am a software developer.
There are are two kinds of features.
A) Promised features
B) Nice-to-have features.
If we say that "this feature will be in" then it will be in. The only exception would be technical difficultes (it can't be implemented) or financial difficultes (which would mean severe mismanagement on our part).
If nice-to-have features threaten promised features, we cut back on the nice-to-have features.

Offline play was a promised feature.
As is already confirmed, removing offline play was not due to technical problems but because of a design decision.

This would be an absolute no-go in our company!
Promised features have to be in, even if it means the whole product would not be as good as it could be because we have to cut back on the nice-to-have features.

I'm yet to see a quote of anyone at FD saying 'I promise you that we will deliver an offline mode'...

Yes pedantic I know but the use of the word 'promise' is being misused here.

The list of tech specs on the website says you will need an online connection to play. The alpha and beta tests required an online connection to play. The full game will require an online connection to download and play....

Where has this 'promise' been made? Certainly not in the KS as that document holds no water and has disclaimers all over it. Or are we taking a forum post on reddit from DB a year ago that it will? I read that as simply at the time he belived it would.

As a software developer ( and I manage a team of them ) you know as well as I do that requirements and features often change right up until the last minute.

 

[Jason S]

At the time of the assertions by FD I stood up for the offline people - FD gave back assurances / promises / changed the KS FAQ / Mentioned it in the Reddit AMA / Magazines have quoted DB as saying an offline version would be available - and now it's not.

"Ask for a refund" was the attitude .. so I have. On the assumption that I am not banned I will let you know the outcome - original KS backer & namer of the Founder System.

Angry, upset & disillusioned by FD .. and things were going so well last week

Some big guns requesting refund, this will likely increase after the weekend. And yes last week seemed a different world in ED.

 

[eeps]

It has been stated before that poll's are inaccurate and can be misinterpreted but at the risk of being slammed for saying this; I feel I must clarify.
13/251 of people who voted, claim they will not play at all. The remaining voters have voted to either not care or would prefer the feature comes at a later date.

so polls in the forums are more like 'straw polls' or 'exit polls' yeah?

they are indicative, but not exact, and can be wildly wrong ...

so :

xxxxxxxx users own the game
xxxxx users visit the forums
xxxx users saw the poll
xxx users voted

yes?

 

[stephen_usher]

What we know so far: A dispassionate round-up.

OK, I think it's time that there was a dispassionate round up of the situation was made:

History

Since 11th December 2012 an off-line mode where the only time a user had to connect to Frontier's servers would be to install the game, install updates or update the galaxy has been a deliverable item from the Kickstarter.

The off-line mode has been promoted by David Braben and Michael Brookes ever since, time and again up until recently.

The off-line mode was described as part of the product on the Elite Shop web site for purchasers up until Friday morning.
​

Current situation.

Off-line mode was announced as cancelled as a sideline in Newsletter #49 as part of an "interview" with David Braben.

Subsequently Michael Brookes has stated that they cancelled off-line mode due to design and logistical issues making it infeasible.

When asked, Micahel Brookes told those affected to seek refunds from the on-line store. Each case will be take on its merits.
​

Analysis

The announcement being made as an aside, buried in other news has caused anger and made many feel that this was disrespectful.

It is unknown when the decision, however unwanted by the development team, was made or how long it has been known or obvious
that this has been a likely outcome of design decisions being made.

According to information given by Michael Brookes, design decisions made to make on-line play better have meant that much of the functionality of the game has been moved out of the client and into the server back-end.

Going by what has been said not only this weekend but previously, the "game" users run seems to be little more than a rendering engine and slave to the back-end server architecture with the ability to run and control NPC ships.

Further deductions about the server architecture include:

• There is a large database holding star system data which has been previously procedurally generated by "Stellar Forge" with modifications both hand crafted and generated by star catalogues.
• Front end systems on Amazon AWS act as authentication, game saving and trading gateways, they perform match making and provide all stellar data from the central database.
• Back-end economic and mission injection systems tie into the central database and modify it.

Because the "client" is merely an unintelligent rendering shell creating an off-line version would require creating practically from scratch an equivalent of the back-end server architecture and bolting this into the "client".
​

 

[Sylv3r]

It has been stated before that poll's are inaccurate and can be misinterpreted but at the risk of being slammed for saying this; I feel I must clarify.
13/251 of people who voted, claim they will not play at all. The remaining voters have voted to either not care or would prefer the feature comes at a later date.

So Kerrash if you think this poll is a nonsense, delete my post and create one poll then we can see a clear one

 

[Kerrash]

so polls in the forums are more like 'straw polls' or 'exit polls' yeah?

they are indicative, but not exact, and can be wildly wrong ...

so :

xxxxxxxx users own the game
xxxxx users visit the forums
xxxx users saw the poll
xxx users voted

yes?

That is one problem with them yes.

So Kerrash if you think this poll is a nonsense, delete my post and create one poll then we can see a clear one

I don't think this poll is any less valid than any other. Just that polls in general are not good empirical evidence of anything.
They always remind me of the "88% of our 167 person study preferred our shampoo" type adverts

 

[ianw]

Liqua is a particularly bizarre case. How do you jump from publicly and loudly proclaiming your intentions as an Open mode PvP pirate to demanding a refund over the lack of an off-line mode?

He's out of luck anyway, as KS is not refunded. I've never heard of that at least.

I do actually remember Liqua posting specifically on this topic yonks ago - something about being able to play on a laptop in travel situations - so this is actually consistent with his previous statements.

(Disclosure - I am not in any way connected to Liqua or his official mouthpiece - I just recall that and can't let that one go!)

 

[Kicks]

So Kerrash if you think this poll is a nonsense, delete my post and create one poll then we can see a clear one

He's not saying it is nonsense. He's saying out of all those who have voted, a tiny minority are affected. And nobody is saying "hoho, sucks to be them"... it is unfortunate. However, this fits in line with the fact that it is a minority affected, not a majority.

 

[sbdags]

OK, I think it's time that there was a dispassionate round up of the situation was made:

History

Since 11th December 2012 an off-line mode where the only time a user had to connect to Frontier's servers would be to install the game, install updates or update the galaxy has been a deliverable item from the Kickstarter.

The off-line mode has been promoted by David Braben and Michael Brookes ever since, time and again up until recently.

The off-line mode was described as part of the product on the Elite Shop web site for purchasers up until Friday morning.
​

Current situation.

Off-line mode was announced as cancelled as a sideline in Newsletter #49 as part of an "interview" with David Braben.

Subsequently Michael Brookes has stated that they cancelled off-line mode due to design and logistical issues making it infeasible.

When asked, Micahel Brookes told those affected to seek refunds from the on-line store. Each case will be take on its merits.
​

Analysis

The announcement being made as an aside, buried in other news has caused anger and made many feel that this was disrespectful.

It is unknown when the decision, however unwanted by the development team, was made or how long it has been known or obvious
that this has been a likely outcome of design decisions being made.

According to information given by Michael Brookes, design decisions made to make on-line play better have meant that much of the functionality of the game has been moved out of the client and into the server back-end.

Going by what has been said not only this weekend but previously, the "game" users run seems to be little more than a rendering engine and slave to the back-end server architecture with the ability to run and control NPC ships.

Further deductions about the server architecture include:

• There is a large database holding star system data which has been previously procedurally generated by "Stellar Forge" with modifications both hand crafted and generated by star catalogues.
• Front end systems on Amazon AWS act as authentication, game saving and trading gateways, they perform match making and provide all stellar data from the central database.
• Back-end economic and mission injection systems tie into the central database and modify it.

Because the "client" is merely an unintelligent rendering shell creating an off-line version would require creating practically from scratch an equivalent of the back-end server architecture and bolting this into the "client".
​

Very nice statement of fact.

 

[eeps]

So Kerrash if you think this poll is a nonsense, delete my post and create one poll then we can see a clear one

the only accurate poll would have to be 'pushed' onto _all_ users .. like at login or something .. which aint gunna happen

thats not to say your poll is bad, or or anything .. just that it cant be totally accurate .. but creates a 'sense' of whats going on

its a good poll, i would have asked diff q's peronsally, but a good poll nonethless !

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

Some big guns requesting refund, this will likely increase after the weekend. And yes last week seemed a different world in ED.

And yet those big guns have no issues playing the game without an offline mode...

Sorry but as far as I am concerned you cant ask for a refund simply because you are annoyed with FD's decision .. Thats not how it works.

I assume Liqua is no longer going to the premier either then? As others have said its completely bizarre from someone like that ... Someone who has been championing PVP from the start .. .