I'm not even sure how I should reply to that?
What connection? And how is that relevant?
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I'm not even sure how I should reply to that?
What connection? And how is that relevant?
Mail sent.
Not if you're in supercruise
Look you can argue black is white all you want. Online = game world in which other players are playing = my gameplay is affected by other players = not single player.
Other players being physically visible on my screen on not is irrelevant the game state is as dependent on those players as it is me.
Last edited:
Dodgy companies hide things to the last minute and then act like jerks when called on things. Morally and in most european systems legally, people are now entitled to a refund and should get it. No hoops, no questions, no pointing to legally meaningless terms and conditions. Just a refund.
Handled properly in the first place I bet very few people would want a refund but it hasn't been handled properly. It's been handled very badly and is continuing to be handled badly.
A clever company would throw up their hands and apologise for not being explicitly clear months ago. They would then offer a substantial recompense in the form of electronic goodies combined with cast-iron guarantees that the servers will either always be available or an offline patch will be produced prior to shut-down. A clever company would have all this in place when making the announcement and the announcement would have been genuine and detailed - not a few market-speak nonsense handwaving sentences. Then it would be seen as a good company going above and beyond in a regrettable situation.
A sleazy company will carp and prevaricate about full no-questions refunds. It would behave like STEAM.
Actually there IS a way to pause your present situation, sort of: "Save and Quit to Main Menu."
It saves your ship's current position, removes your ship from play, and takes you offline. When you go back online, whether in open, private or solo, you return to your original position relative to whichever major mass you are near.
The only caveat: nothing else stays the same. Mission countdowns continue in the background, other players and NPCs move on, markets change, planetary positions change. But you are still there. It's better than losing your ship, your credits, your vouchers and exploratory data, and your present position by taking your eye and hand away for 2 minutes.
Comes down to a debate on what is really multiplayer.
You don't interact with any other players.
Your universe gets updates from a server acting as GM that uses the same Galaxy for all the players but each is in their own bubble that will never interact.
Maybe. Or maybe they just recognise it as a pretty crappy thing to do at this stage of the game. Which it is.
Rubbish. There is nothing suggesting it will suddenly be WoW with quild raids.
Im not sure that works while in combat either - there is a small window where your ship remains 'visible' to others while engaged.
You seem to be missing the point. When the kickstarter launched it wasn't an MMO elite, it was an MMO elite and a SP elite. As of Friday it's only a MMO elite. Those who wanted the SP elite are entitled to being unhappy about it.
Not if you're in supercruise
well it's a minor inconvenience and not the life changing travesty that many emotional posters on here would make you believe.
Then you can still play solo
What would the difference have been? For example, was more than 80% of your pledge for the development of an offline mode? What kind of rewards did you get from that bracket? Are you able to give those back if you process a partial pledge refund? More than anything, I guess I'm just curious why you'd want a partial refund if you were going to support the game anyway.
Many games started as "singleplayer". Many games evolved and ADDED a multplayer mode. Many games can give you BOTH, a good singleplayer experience AND a multiplayer option to go online with your friends and have fun...
Elite: Dangerous set out do be a revival of the original ELITE / ELITE II / FRONTIER experience and to add the multiplayer experience of a MMOG. I like the idea, yet I was also hoping to have a fallback/alternative for offline / normal singleplayer!
As I said before, one of the main decision points, to buy into the beta WAS the option to play offline, if the multiplayer experience is not what I like.
And believe me, I don't like the multiplayer experience how it is, currently. I try, but even with group play it is, well, useless and simply adds "disconnects" or "crashes"...
Are they using the old English definition of billion (a million million) then? I'm pleasantly surprised!
There are a few comments about the "white knights" - which is just a pretty way of saying "fan boys" - who will defend the developers no matter what.
It's not that simple. Those of us attempting to counter various statements are doing so because we've read, understood and believe the posts from Mike. Given what he has said, the only way FD can provide an offline mode will directly and negatively impact the game we are looking forward to playing. Creating two games would double the development time, merging offline into the existing game would force the online aspect to be spoiled.
I want neither.
The rest of the debate is generated by posters challenging the integrity or validity of what Mike has said. We're worried for the game's image because we want it to do well so, naturally, we want to provide a counter argument to present both sides. We're aware this announcement has already damaged the game's image, there's nothing anyone can do about that; it's the erroneous, hyperbolic or conspiracy-fueled, illogical arguments that we're countering; particularly those that challenge or ignore what Mike has said. We believe him.
But these arguments have now become a parody of themselves and no one is coming up with anything new or that hasn't already been said dozens of times, hundreds of pages ago.
It's turned into a verbal merry go round. It either will influence FD to compromise their vision for the online aspect or it won't. I do not want that. Thankfully, I have the advantage of not needing to worry about that because it's not going to happen.
But those who agree with that are not going to stop replying. It's just that it's got to the point of a farce. I have no idea why the thread's still open. But in the interests of feedback, I guess it will remain so.
If only the thread was predominantly feedback. I've not read a new take from anyone for well over 200 pages.
It's not that simple. Those of us attempting to counter various statements are doing so because we've read, understood and believe the posts from Mike. Given what he has said, the only way FD can provide an offline mode will directly and negatively impact the game we are looking forward to playing. Creating two games would double the development time, merging offline into the existing game would force the online aspect to be spoiled.
I want neither.
The rest of the debate is generated by posters challenging the integrity or validity of what Mike has said. We're worried for the game's image because we want it to do well so, naturally, we want to provide a counter argument to present both sides. We're aware this announcement has already damaged the game's image, there's nothing anyone can do about that; it's the erroneous, hyperbolic or conspiracy-fueled, illogical arguments that we're countering; particularly those that challenge or ignore what Mike has said. We believe him.
But these arguments have now become a parody of themselves and no one is coming up with anything new or that hasn't already been said dozens of times, hundreds of pages ago.
It's turned into a verbal merry go round. It either will influence FD to compromise their vision for the online aspect or it won't. I do not want that. Thankfully, I have the advantage of not needing to worry about that because it's not going to happen.
But those who agree with that are not going to stop replying. It's just that it's got to the point of a farce. I have no idea why the thread's still open. But in the interests of feedback, I guess it will remain so.
If only the thread was predominantly feedback. I've not read a new take from anyone for well over 200 pages.
Last edited:
Well, i can live with the online-part.
The problem is, that until today they are not able to deliver a proper MMO-part.
Till today the MMO-part is laggy, instanced & crashing -> no fun.
I said it before:
I have no pure solo game at all and a wonky MMO-game. Just a solo game that forces me to stay connected (if i can connect due to the shabby servers).
Sad!
The problem is, that until today they are not able to deliver a proper MMO-part.
Till today the MMO-part is laggy, instanced & crashing -> no fun.
I said it before:
I have no pure solo game at all and a wonky MMO-game. Just a solo game that forces me to stay connected (if i can connect due to the shabby servers).
Sad!
Yes that sums it up for me, going for a cuppa and will make my decision after ED makes a decent statement of intent.
Oh do stop
quit the dramatics, you know this is a beta forum, the press shouldnt be able to post in here, if the press want to stick their noses in let it be through official channels. If you want to go talk to them do so, but not in this PRIVATE beta forum. You go tell them all your woes why dont you, no one is stopping you.
- Status