No Single Player offline Mode then?

[sbdags]

true.
but people hoped with every single patch and hotfix since B1: "this time it will work".

i can understand if they are a bit short on hopes at the moment

Indeed.

I loved 1.06 for solo play but open was very broken.

2.00 - 2.03 was a complete disaster.

2.06 was passable for open play but some sever bugs persisted. Stuttering was present in this build too.

3.00 - 3.02 - another disaster

3.05 again is passable and I'm enjoying it - especially open play is working much better now but omg fix the stuttering in SC for the love of GOD...

 

[figola]

although i planned to play online from the beginning... i did see the offline mode as a fallback option in case the galaxy and it's community drifts in a direction i don't want to be part of.
so i perfectly get your point.

Exactly what I had planned. We'll put.

 

[Wulfrune]

which of those would you say rattles you the most? Is it more a gestalt of all those and so much more?

I would strongly suspect "All of the above and some"

 

[mbpoblet]

FD can always roll out server software and hand it over to some fan organization in case they are leaving this game be. It's not like game has huge trade secrets in it.

Nah, they don't want to (because of their precious "secrets", nevermind the fact that we'd be fine with a "barebones" server without any "secret" content and with a different galactic seed):

Michael, so what would it take hardware wise to run a "personal" server that you could connect to via LAN? I have a spare PC sitting around doing nothing or are we talking about needing terabytes of RAM and a dozen Xeon cores?

The problem here is that you'd have access to the server which isn't something we'd want to allow as it contains the secrets of the galaxy. Which was also an issue with an online version.

Michael

 

[Skeloton]

Nah, they don't want to (because of their precious "secrets", nevermind the fact that we'd be fine with a "barebones" server without any "secret" content and with a different galactic seed):

Most depressing.

 

[vonFelty]

Nah, they don't want to (because of their precious "secrets", nevermind the fact that we'd be fine with a "barebones" server without any "secret" content and with a different galactic seed):

Oh good lord. Wouldn't want those secrets out! Also, doesn't seem to answer the question of what computer it would take to run the galaxy.

 

[Corsel]

So what is it you want? Advise, or a handbag fight?

I'm simply using the forums to post my ideas about the game. A shoker, right? First time to use a forum for that end.
The problem is that so many people are so defensive on their vision of the game that anything can be perceived as an attack that needs to be countered and it all becomes a mudfest really fast.

 

[Tim Wheatley]

oh !? , those star citizens are in the same boat !

I knew about that. The SC devs seem to do a decent job of communicating things like that. But, they have the money to, the things they use to communicate were stretch goals. (I say this as a backer of both).

 

[Skeloton]

Oh good lord. Wouldn't want those secrets out! Also, doesn't seem to answer the question of what computer it would take to run the galaxy.

Certainly would not require a supercomputer and probably not a maxed out ultra £££ high end.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Yeah remarkably similar comments to here ....

Definitely a crisis meeting first thing for DB and MB me thinks!

Remarkably same commentators there.

 

[Wulfrune]

Perhaps Ian Bell can get a Kickstarter going for an offline version!

He should just stick to batting at number four for England

 

[Titus Balls]

I happily admit to being one.

I am posting the below in the comments each time someone links a news story. FD need to change their mind and for that there needs to be continued pressure on them to do so.

No, they don't - the moment they do then FD have actually lost all credibility - more so than dropping offline in the first place.

It sets a precedent that undermines any future decisions they make and means Frontier loose control of their own game to a player base who all want wildly different things.

The press is already out there about it, the dice have already been cast. People have already started requesting their money back and say they don't trust FD.

Regardless of if they do a 180 now, most of those people are already lost to FD - to do so now will alienate all the people who now want them to concentrate on making the best online game because they will believe Frontier now won't have the resources to do that (and they won't - do you have a spare £1m and a bank full of developers down the back of the sofa?)

Edit: If you make it all things to all people, Elite: Dangerous becomes the video game version of this:

 

[mbpoblet]

Hi guys, I don't have time to read through all the pages(300!?) any word on if refunds might be given? Gutted about this...

"On a case by case basis."

 

[Owsla]

The biggest alarm bell going off for me about 100% on-line play... is that Elite Dangerous may never be moddable by the community.

I think that's a huge issue if it is the case... for it's future and for it's following.
I know this isn't Skyrim, but I had visions of ED slowly being created into an incredibly diverse and interesting world, without any restrictions to it's creation.

I know FD will provide future content... but I believe that modding creates community for a game, it also extends it's life far into the future.
Personally I think it's a very important aspects of pc gaming.. and If this announcement cuts the possibility of modding out completely.. well.. I think that's a big problem.

 

[Tim Wheatley]

Remarkably same commentators there.

Same comments about the same thing. Shocking.

I'd expect more negativity actually on other sites than here in the forum. There tends to be more trolls on gaming sites.

 

[the darkwalker]

Oh good lord. Wouldn't want those secrets out! Also, doesn't seem to answer the question of what computer it would take to run the galaxy.

my calculator could...somebody posted that in "solo" mode the bandwith required is in bytes!

 

[Tim Wheatley]

No, they don't - the moment they do then FD have actually lost all credibility - more so than dropping offline in the first place.

It sets a precedent that undermines any future decisions they make and means Frontier loose control of their own game to a player base who all want different things.

The press is already out there about it, the dice have already been cast. People have already started requesting their money back and say they don't trust FD.

Regardless of if they do a 180 now, most of those people are already lost to FD - to do so now will alienate all the people who now want them to concentrate on making the best online game because they will believe Frontier now won't have the resources to do that (and they won't - do you have a spare £1m and a bank full of developers down the back of the sofa?)

Although I wanted offline, I agree.

 

[Skeloton]

"On a case by case basis."

In my case, i don't seem to exist. So far Ive given benefit of my doubt. It is 1am on a Monday.

 

[sbdags]

He should just stick to batting at number four for England

Boom boom!

And on that note I'm off to bed! 1am!

Up early to catch up on 500+ riveting posts I'm sure.....

 

[Cmdr Cheese Wedge]

still better than our average in italy, take it with perspective!

Im sorry to see that, would have thought Italy to be much higher up the list, I like your slow food culture but slow internet is a drag