No Single Player offline Mode then?

[mbpoblet]

A troubling thought.......

How many didn't read the newsletter, or did but missed the crucial news because of the camouflage, and have not yet visited the forum ? I don't know, but "a great many" is the term that occurs.

Given the current debate, God knows what the response will be when word finally reaches everyone.

Indeed.

I usually read the newsletters with interest, and I didn't see this when I read this one, I had to see it on Reddit.

And how many people even read the newsletters? Particularly among those that will be most affected by this, due to not having a constant or reliable connection?

There will be a lot of people that won't find out they can't play the game till they actually try to.

 

[Seonid]

The reason I wanted a fully offline version is because I do not want other people making the discoveries for me, crashing the markets, depleting rare resources and changing the game.

If I could do that in 500 systems, I'm sure you could in hundreds of thousands.

 

[Nidhöggr]

A fully offline experience would be unacceptably limited and static compared to the dynamic, ever unfolding experience we are delivering."

sounds like a lie to me. dynamic events have NOTHING to do with a server connection. its just you don't want to include some game intelligence to the game client, so people are forced to go online - its DRM, nothing else!

it's the same lie ubisoft told the people about siedler 6 and ea with the latest sim city.

And in any case, do you actually play the 1984 Elite still? I sure don't. If and when Elite shuts down in the future, something else will take it's place. Games are a young art still, and a rapidly advancing one. Clinging to false permanence goes nowhere.

i still play "schleichfahrt", quake 1+2, and a lot of other old games. with your thinking i wouldn't be able to do so

 

[Ydiss]

Exactly.

The whole situation is already pretty irksome, but the way they are handling it, with an almost hidden reference in a newsletter (while all over the place offline mode is still being referred to), and particularly Brookes' dismissive posts, reeks of unprofessionality and disregard for the backers.

I'm sad to say Frontier's PR has fallen to the level of EA's, Microsoft's or Ubisoft's, and if they don't do something drastic the reaction is only going to get worse (and most affected people probably haven't even heard, yet).

Mike fielded 36 questions with clarity and professionalism in every post. I understood him clearly and have full clarity as to the reasons for this design decision; that it was also a reluctant one to make.

Tomato, tomato, I guess.

 

[PIXEL]

Perhaps it's this:

From the ED Eula:


The bit I've bolded at the end is especially rich..

Because now, if you unplug, the game won't even work.. So you'll basically be forced to watch any advertising that FD care to sell to third parties.. can you say "captive audience"?

Maybe not the whole reason for pulling offline play, but who's to say it didn't play a part? If people can play offline, how can FD push advertising to their game? After all, we have no idea just who the anonymous investors that FD partnered with are.. (and please don't claim there aren't any, everyone.. it's pretty clear the KS on its own wasn't sufficient to fund the game)

(And it seem to me rather likely that the same anonymous investors could be behind the push to rush this game to market before it's truly ready)

Oh my giddy aunt !! (english expression of dis-belief) if all this comes down to advertising potential then I certainly want out as an ED player - Might have to buy shares in FDev and sell em to buy an offline boardgame (-:

 

[mbpoblet]

The bit I've bolded at the very end is especially rich..

Hah, awesome!

There you go, everyone who says offline wasn't promised, or planned, or whatever... the EULA itself assumes the availability of an offline mode! Classic!

 

[Perramas]

Have you any comprehension of how big the galaxy is?

You can find your very own spot and stay there, most likey never see or be effected by anyone else ever.

Can you comprehend I do not want others making discoveries for me or competing against RMTers in the markets? Even if I do not ever see them I will still be affected by their actions.

 

[SJT]

Mike fielded 36 questions with clarity and professionalism in every post. I understood him clearly and have full clarity as to the reasons for this design decision; that it was also a reluctant one to make.

Tomato, tomato, I guess.

I asked the question as to when the decision to pull offline was made. He didn't reply. He was evasive and curt with pretty much everyone else.

 

[biglads]

Can you comprehend I do not want others making discoveries for me or competing against RMTers in the markets? Even if I do not ever see them I will still be affected by their actions.

I'm curious. Would your ideal offline game have AI ships that are blocked from going to as-yet undiscovered (by you) systems?

 

[Ydiss]

I asked the question as to when the decision to pull offline was made. He didn't reply. He was evasive and curt with pretty much everyone else.

As I said, tomato, tomato.

 

[Memnoch]

The reason I wanted a fully offline version is because I do not want other people making the discoveries for me, crashing the markets, depleting rare resources and changing the game. I also do not want to have to compete against people in the markets who use RMT services to buy in game money.

All good points. However it remains to be seen how much actual competing there is going to be in the full game. We are still currently locked up in a tiny fraction of 1% of the galaxy. When everyone can stretch their legs and move around a bit more it will still be an issue but perhaps much less of one.

I can't speak for rare resources as I don't think there will be any.

 

[FX2K]

The lack of offline mode whilst affecting those with no internet also has me worried (and I said it many many pages back in this thread) about cheats / hacks and the likes, only to be told 'you have solo'...

But further thinking, triggered by this thread popping back up: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=16216&page=7
has me slightly worried.

One of the reasons stated here for lack of offline was a different seed would be like maintaining two games which they will not do.
Since my solo game affects your solo game, in some form or another, somebody with bad intents can have an effect on every other players game, the extent of which will only really be known when it happens. Do FD have a policy in place? Are FD able to make relevant adjustments to repair 'individual' player accounts in case of such things?

Offline was my fallback... but no more. Whilst a different game, my experience in GTA online was dreadful, still today my online account is ruined because of hackers, so much so that I just play single player. In that particular game, in-game credits where injected and distributed to players without consent not long after release... my stats where ruined and still are to this day, not that stats bother me too much.
R* Failed to prepare and it took months for them to 'sort of' clean up the mess. From recent readings it seems that they are still having problems where people have been losing all their equipment / funds etc.

At least in GTA they do have a separate instance to group all cheaters, but in ED, it is now clear that won't be possible since we all run from the same simulation data.

I would hate for this to happen in ED, considering I would simply never play it again.. Ever! Especially now there is no offline.
I hope that FD announce a zero tolerance policy before its too late, or at least are ready for the inevitable.

 

[littleminxundr]

A woman who kickstarted Wasteland 2... are you generally perfect or was that a fluke?

Well, seeing as Wastelands 2 turned out to be a major snorefest with as much excitement as a defunct rollercoaster, I think that being a rube for Wastelands 2 is a badge of shame, lol

 

[Quietman]

Mike fielded 36 questions with clarity and professionalism in every post. I understood him clearly and have full clarity as to the reasons for this design decision; that it was also a reluctant one to make.

Tomato, tomato, I guess.

I am not trying to minimise Michael's dedication, as he did respond to a large number of posts on a weekend that a lot of developers would never even dream of doing, so I applaud him for that.

But to say they were fielded with clarity and clearly understandable is nothing short of hogwash.

What he actually did, in almost all his responses, was selectively answer 1 or at most 2 questions of multi-question posts with 1 line answers that sometimes answered those questions and other times raised even more questions due to their ambiguity, crypticness and lack of information.

Now I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am not judging his answers, what i am doing is presenting facts and not sugar coating with blinkers on.

Perhaps you should re-read all the questions that were asked of him and his respective responses?

 

[Skeloton]

As I said, tomato, tomato.

Im not sure that works with a text medium.....assuming you meant like to-mate-o, to-mart-o.

 

[SJT]

I'm curious. Would your ideal offline game have AI ships that are blocked from going to as-yet undiscovered (by you) systems?

I think the point is, he would like to discover where HIS thargoids are in HIS personal Elite Dangerous galaxy and not find out that they have already been discovered on a GalNet news article.

 

[Memnoch]

Well, seeing as Wastelands 2 turned out to be a major snorefest with as much excitement as a defunct rollercoaster, I think that being a rube for Wastelands 2 is a badge of shame, lol

I wasn't aware of it while its Kickstarter was running so I bought into it later. But I have since found I don't really enjoy the pace of those types of games any more. Still trying to fight through Divinity: Original Sin, but I can only take it in small doses now.

 

[strangerdanger]

Well, seeing as Wastelands 2 turned out to be a major snorefest with as much excitement as a defunct rollercoaster, I think that being a rube for Wastelands 2 is a badge of shame, lol

Naaah, it wasn't that bad Can't blame you for trying either... and it certainly helps with development of Torment Numenera so it's a win win situation!

</offtopic>

 

[wykstrom]

One of the issues I have with this online only position is something they simply cannot effectively address, and that's the connection lag I see in solo play on occasion that has caused me to:

1. Fail an interdiction. It literally happened as the interdiction began and by the time it went away I couldn't find the escape vector in time.

2. Overshoot a destination. I think it was Chu Hub or something, but I got a lag spike as I was very close and when it ended I had no time to throttle down and overshot.

3. Weird lag delays coming out of hyperspace. Sometimes the ship will sit there shaking around for up to 20 seconds waiting for it to sync with the servers.


You cannot avoid lag online, that's the bottom line. Sometimes your connection or the servers WILL be laggy, so you will end up at the mercy of one or the other instead of your own skill in an offline single player experience.

I see no merit in keeping the single player game online in spite of all of their justifications other than 'they want to'.

 

[biglads]

I think the point is, he would like to discover where HIS thargoids are in HIS personal Elite Dangerous galaxy and not find out that they have already been discovered on a GalNet news article.

So only the player can discover things, or have agency in offline, OK. I kind of get it but it seems to make a very sterile universe. I recognise this is a derail and will exit, but I am trying to better understand what people actually want their (putative) offline experience to be like. Thanks.