No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Sterlino]

You haven't said why it is a must? Clearly it is not a must to FD or some backers on here so why do you think it is a must. I'm interested....

it's a must for various reasons:

1 - An offline version is free from any kind of limitations, more fluid, more playable, not depending to the connection limits, etc..

2 - A stand alone game can be sold better (so if crafted some year later from this first online version release it can assure some future to the game)

3 - Final Respect for all those backers of the first kickstarter.

4 - It will stay in the history... (like frontier and elite) an online version can't do this imho.

 

[Cmdr Cheese Wedge]

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.

Come and move to regional Australia sbdags, I want you to experience our pain.

 

[Steve O B Have]

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.

​

Was it a deliverable? I've just read the Kickstarter and I can't see it specifically referred to as an offline mode. Also reading the KS Ts&Cs they state some pretty specific things.

When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.

Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.

also

Kickstarter doesn’t offer refunds. Responsibility for finishing a project lies entirely with the project creator. Kickstarter doesn’t hold funds on creators’ behalf, cannot guarantee creators’ work, and does not offer refunds.

Personally (and let me be very clear here - this is my personal opinion and in no way shape or form does it reflect the opinions and/or policies of Frontier Developments) I think that there is an awful lot of hyperbole going on here. Is it unfortunate that some can't play offline. Yes 100%. Should all effort be put into catering for the vocal minority or should Frontier be looking to deliver their promised actual deliverables from Kickstarter? PERSONALLY - I think they need to be delivering the product and rewards as stipulated within the Kickstarter agreement that you all signed up to when you pledged in FULL understanding that you are buying a vision from DB and Frontier.

Again - this is my PERSONAL opinion and NOT that of Frontier. I bought into this as a fan and a gamer and I'm sticking with them as a fan and a gamer. It doesn't meet my personal vision of the game, mine was very much leaning toward a revamped FE2 but I didn't buy into someone developing MY vision, I bought into DBs and Frontiers. I bought into it understanding that it may very well be a different kettle to what I might like.​

 

[sbdags]

Hasn't everybody been testing online for the last 12 months?

Yes. odd eh?

You do realise it wouldn't have made a difference right? PR spin or straight speak - the result from anyone's point of view of missing out on some feature that was proposed would have been exactly the same regardless.

Exactly - focussing on the method of delivery is wrong. They had come to a decision obviously a bit late in the delivery cycle, and had to break bad news.

A lot of the discontent comes from the quite reasonable fear that once the company closes the servers they cannot play the game. Frontier should make a firm commitment to keep a maintenance-mode server running for a specified number of years come what may. Or they should make a cast-iron commitment to provide an offline patch should they decide to close the servers.

Are we really worried about that right now? I'm more worried that the release is coming in a month and it is still very buggy.... Network is not optimal. I've been prioritising my worries

 

[tagos]

You do realise it wouldn't have made a difference right? PR spin or straight speak - the result from anyone's point of view of missing out on some feature that was proposed would have been exactly the same regardless.

No I don't realise that. 'Right?' Words matter, how things are said matter, who says them matter. Otherwise there would be no such thing as 'marketing'. This news was released in the worst possible way. What should have happened is a proper announcement - in a video by DB himself - also promising a) a guarantee that the game will either always have an active server or an off-line patch in the case of Frontier folding the game and b) a no quibble refund for anyone for whom these assurances were not enough.

 

[mattensky]

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.

There are plenty of people on here who aren't exactly sympathetic to those who now can't play. I live in Australia - and my connection is unreliable, and my max data allowance (mobile broadband - I cannot get DSL) too small to play always online. When I expressed my disappointment yesterday:

- I was told to change ISPs (I can't - only one services my address)
- I was accused of lying by two different posters on the basis that I own a Surface Pro 2 - which I use to download games and patches from uni which I then copy to my gaming rig at home (apparently owning an SP2 means you automatically have good internet?)
- I was accused of living in North Korea (just weird)
- I was told I was selfish to even consider a refund on the basis that that money would be used to develop the game (even though I can't play it)

This was yesterday morning (Aus time) - and things have basically gone down hill from there.

I just cannot understand the motivation of those defending FD in this. It has caused huge disappointment to people like myself who have paid for a game on the basis that we could play it offline. And who learned yesterday that something they'd been looking forward to immensely has been taken away. I also bought a new gpu, a CH hotas set-up, a TrackIR and was in the process of ordering a new monitor - basically because I was so excited about this game and looking forward to playing properly once the offline version was released - no doubt many have spent more than me.

This is profoundly disappointing - but what's worse is being attacked by people who aren't affected in any way.

 

[tagos]

Yes. odd eh?



Exactly - focussing on the method of delivery is wrong. They had come to a decision obviously a bit late in the delivery cycle, and had to break bad news.



Are we really worried about that right now? I'm more worried that the release is coming in a month and it is still very buggy.... Network is not optimal. I've been prioritising my worries

That precise fear has been raised repeatedly in threads on this topic. And it's a very reasonable fear. If this feature-thin launch fails to generate new income streams the game could quickly become financially unviable. In two years time they could easily decide to cut their losses. It's happened often enough before in this industry.

 

[Cmdr Oblong]

If Frontier feel it would be too much work to replace the server checks with offline algorithms, that's their decision.

But they continued to trade on a lie and fill their coffers. Now they tell us it would be 'unacceptable' for them to deliver what they promised. I'll tell you what's 'unacceptable'- this condescending attitude towards paying customers. I'm amazed to be saying this about Frontier, they've otherwise been so very good with the community.

Frontier have told me I could play Elite: Dangerous offline for years, and I've looked forward to investing time and money in that world. If they have changed their mind, then so have I.

My personal circumstances make offline play a valuable option. For those not in this situation - consider how your circumstances (or Frontier's) may change over the next 5, 10, 15 years.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I am disappointed, not because I would ever use it at all but because there are certain KS promises in there that I WOULD be gutted about if they were removed so I feel for those where offline was a deal breaker. (I feel the same way about group switching that is my main hook that made be back).

But a couple of thoughts.
1) some people are saying they need offline for those times when on the train etc with no internet and they still want to play. I wonder if some of those people are aware that even at the get go, the second they played offline that commander would forever have been blocked from online so even if it worked as promised I think some people would have been disappointed.

2) on the other side of the fence... I do not get the technical limitation as to why it was dropped. Some people suggest cheaters sniffing out all the ore locations etc and then using these data to benifit in the online game... Well if so why not change the procedural algorithm a bit for the offline. That way the data will be irrelavent for the online game. In the smallprint it could even warn that it may lead to a few unrealistic outcomes but still......

3) for those that say the download of all the systems would be too big for peoples PCs.... I would suggest splitting the offline milky way up into chunks much like your satnav maps so that you get to a point and them if you want to go further afield then you have to connect to download maps. The player can choose how much to get.

 

[Kicks]

This is profoundly disappointing - but what's worse is being attacked by people who aren't affected in any way.

That is disappointing. I must have missed those posts, because it's disgusting that some forum posters think you're a self-entitled liar because you are against the decision. That's just plain wrong. I agree, it doesn't affect me, but would be quite livid if it did - and I know, I have lived in Australia before, and the internet is... yes... well. Not the same as the rest of the world

I am one of those who have been defending FD, though not defending the delivery of the news - and I hope tomorrow this a concrete announcements with lots of words about their thought-process, why it is no longer viable, etc, etc, so that the flames can be quelled somewhat. I believe those who needed offline deserve that at the least.

EDIT: Fanning flames doesn't make things better... quelling probably does

 

[T@F]

Yes we were free testers, but we went into this with our eyes open. We were paying for the experience of being beta testers, we knew that up front. Bear in mind we are amateur testers not professional ones. Paid testers have to play the game in specific ways and are much more useful to dev's than us somewhat inarticulate and random testers. How many beta testers decided not to play open because of PvP when FD would love to stress Open play testing more. How many decided not to play because trading was no longer profitable when FD wanted Missions testing? Sure we were good for large number stress testing but that's about it. We got to be beta testers, so contract fulfilled.

We also went in with our eyes open of getting an offline version.
if the devs can change the goal post why cannot the backers?

 

[Ackoman]

That is disappointing. I must have missed those posts, because it's disgusting that some forum posters think you're a self-entitled liar because you are against the decision. That's just plain wrong. I agree, it doesn't affect me, but would be quite livid if it did - and I know, I have lived in Australia before, and the internet is... yes... well. Not the same as the rest of the world

I am one of those who have been defending FD, though not defending the delivery of the news - and I hope tomorrow this a concrete announcements with lots of words about their thought-process, why it is no longer viable, etc, etc, so that the flames can be fanned somewhat. I believe those who needed offline deserve that at the least.

Doesn't fanning flames make things worse, not better?

 

[Cmdr Cheese Wedge]

I am from Cuba and before migrate to United States a few years ago,I used to play Call of Duty with a 56k modem. I find hard to believe that there is any place in 2014 with internet access worst than Cuba.

Australia ranked 30th in the world 1st world country 3rd world network. THIS is one of the reasons i believed we would have offline and so bought into Premium Beta, not that that matters now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds

 

[Kicks]

Doesn't fanning flames make things worse, not better?

Uh... you're correct of cause... rather bad choice of words

 

[tagos]

There are plenty of people on here who aren't exactly sympathetic to those who now can't play.

It doesn't affect me but I have every sympathy. In my eyes that was a base level commitment they cannot in any good conscience walk away from no matter how inconvenient it has become. It's not that it cannot be done it's that it will not be done. A full refund to anyone who wants it should be offered, not only out of fairness but from a self-interested getting ahead of the story by looking like you're trying to do the right thing. If they don't then the narrative of the story is going to be about cheated customers not a regrettable decision by a company that is doing all it can to mitigate the impact of.

FD don't want to come off like Egosoft did and they don't want ED to get the indelible reputational stain X Rebirth has and can never shake. FD's PR has been shockingly abysmal over this.

 

[ianw]

I stay in a hotel 3 nights a week .. EVERY week ...

My gaming laptop does not play ED very well, and most sub £1000 wouldn't in all honesty... So the fact there is no offline mode is the least of my worries...

Am I bothered about this? Nope .. I play other games instead, and then play ED when I am home on my main rig ... In the end its my decision to be working away from home every week , that isnt FD's fault.

In that regard ED is 'fit for purpose' for me anyway .. The only people who realistically should be able to ask for a refund are those who literally cannot play the game without an offline mode.

Oh I know a guy in chat who regularly plays online mode from hotels on his laptop via 3G/4G dongle so for him at least that is a viable option.

I was just pointing out that the poster in question above is on record in the past as saying that offline mode was very important to him, it's not something he just made up. I'm not saying whether he should or shouldn't get a refund as that has nothing to do with me.

 

[Cmdr Cogg-Willoughby]

You do realise it wouldn't have made a difference right? PR spin or straight speak - the result from anyone's point of view of missing out on some feature that was proposed would have been exactly the same regardless.

Not true. There are a great many unimpressed people who personally have no interest in an offline mode, but are not happy about FD's behaviour and handling of all this. I am one. I'm not a KS backer, would at no point have played offline, yet to be honest I thought newsletter 49 was pretty much a disgrace. Fortunately for me I have very little invested in ED so was able to laugh whilst reading it rather than get angry, but I completely understand the reaction of those who have.

If FD had just been more transparent with the progress and changing focus of various aspects of the project, they would have had a few refund requests and disappointed people over the past year or so, but nothing like this current backlash.

Regards the suggestion that people who have been playing beta are somehow less entitled to a refund (and I'm personally not asking for a refund), I think that's just absurd. The more time people have invested in this only to find that they've been beta testing a different game than what they were told, the more they deserve recompense.

 

[deMangler]

There has been talk of a partial refund.
I am undecided on whether to request a refund, I want FD to have the best chance of making ED great even if I can't play it. Getting my £300 back from them will not help anyone. And there is no way I can get back the hundreds more I have spent on hardware specifically because I wanted to play this game, money I spend over nearly two years because offline play for a game like this is pretty rare these days. There is no way I can get the time back that I spent helping to test the game since alpha either. Actually I don't want the time back - it helped make the game good so fair enough - from my perspective it was time wasted though as the game I was hoping it would lead to will not be released.
I am still not sure whether to request a refund - however, full refunds should be given, not just "we will refund the cost of your DRM free disk"
Pledging two years of time testing and lots of money is significant for people. They can't give us the time back but giving the money back without quibbling is the least they can do.

 

[stephen_usher]

Was it a deliverable? I've just read the Kickstarter and I can't see it specifically referred to as an offline mode. Also reading the KS Ts&Cs they state some pretty specific things.

Unfortunately, I think the only way to test this definitively would be with a court case, which is not what anyone needs. The legality of the Kickstarter boiler plate under English law with regards to implied contracts would also need to be tested.

 

[Lugalbandak]

btw , there is not a single offline game on my pc that NOT need internet , tey all need it. can i play them , yes