No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
It amazes me how people keep repeating that "if you have internet access why do you care". The issue is not that simple, you are. Either that, or you didn't bother to read through the many posts where people have brought up perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting an offline mode that have nothing to do with their internet connection or lack thereof.

For goodness' sake, this thread has over 5000 replies, at least make the effort to read a couple before you comment.
 
Nope, because directly following your quote it also says - "If a creator is absolutely unable to complete the project and fulfill rewards, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to a satisfying conclusion for their backers" - FD have clearly not done that.

So they didn't made every *reasonable* effort then?
 
Really? You upset a significant portion of your backers - people you have publicly, on numerous occasions, cited as having been responsible for getting the game off the ground in the first place - and you don't think you'd feel like apologising to them at all? Let me know if you kickstart anything so's I don't back it! ;)

If i was threatened, called a fraudster etc then no i don't think i'd be able to make a heartfelt apology to the people that slandered me. Maybe that just me though ;)
 
Poor Michael. He's the only one with any nuts to come on here, and then we all team up on him like he was a sidewinder in Freeport....

But, seriously. FD. HAAAALLLLLLLLLOOOOOO????? A little bit more communication. Mikey does not like to be roasted. And we dont want to have to do it.

Goodnight. Had enough shochu. Had enough pew pew too. It would be nice if I was able to do it offline too...
 
Yep, I care to disagree with your sentiment.

First off, it is beyond me why so many are requesting a solo/offline mode in a game that is intended to be played with others, afterall it is a dynamic massively multiplayer world that reacts to the players actions. This would not be possible if people were allowed to play offline, without the server synced up to their world, and vice versa.

>>> The fact that - in your own words - so many people are requesting an offline mode, well this surely is evidence that people can have different aspirations for their gameplay than your own. Is it not? It does not matter if it is "beyond you" or not. The aspiration for offline mode exists whether you believe in it or not, whether you personally support it or not... Just because your mindset is different, this does not excuse the fact that a feature that was offered not once, but re-iterated many times over, even by the Executive Producer, Michael Brookes on this very forum, and has now been dropped so close to "release date". (Fwiw - those of us who do want to take advantage of offline and even a "static" universe are willing to wait for a separate update, patch or release at some future date)
>>> I will say again - MULTIPLE assertions that offline would be available has been reversed. This *IS* a trust issue.

It is also beyond me that you are speaking of "trust". It seems you are unaware of how kickstarter works. While the developers have to produce a product after reaching their goals, none of the specifics are written in stone. They have the full freedom to change, move around, manipulate any aspects of the game, at any given point. This is important to ensure that the product is actually living up to its standards and to the technology of the time, rather than being chained by early development promises which in the end make little to no sense. Btw, you are not an investor, all the money you have provided to the development was out of good will, they don't have to meet your individual visions of the game.

>>> Patronise much? I am fully aware of how kickstarter must operate, etc. And yes I will speak of trust if there are multiple references out there that have confirmed to us backers and pre-order customers that offline was always part and parcel of the game design philosophy. For people like you to now state that offline play was never part of the design philosophy - well that isn't what is actually published by FD. Their aspiration was for an offline mode to be included. Fact. Don't go gainsaying the reality without factual evidence - instead go and search the actual text written by FD in several different places.


I for one believe that this change is necessary to the overall experience. As I said earlier, why a solo mode was planned in the first place is beyond me. There is no fun in mining/trading when there is no fear of another intelligent player looking to pirate you nor is it any fun to fight AI all the time.

>>> I will do the courtesy of allowing you and everyone else to decide what they personally find to be fun. Please do me the same courtesy and refrain from speaking for everyone in blanket statements. Thanks.
>>> What is more, how does the removal of an offline mode enrich your own personal experience? - or how do you believe that the inclusion of an offline mode will dilute you experience? Those would be very odd notions. If you think my motivation to retain offline mode is "selfish", then perhaps your own motivations to support the removal of offline is just as selfish? My motivation, however, is not a selfish one - if the developers get away scott free with a gross breach of all of our trust on any one issue - then there is less overall accountability when other things are u-turned. As I noted earlier above - the offline mode can wait and be released down the line for all I care - so stating that development of offline mode might impact "your" online mode is a non-argument as far as I can tell.
 
5538 posts and still going, and still no comment from David himself and basically Michael stone walling every one, that there is great public relations these guys should be politicans.

At this point that there is what worries me more than anything else, I honestly would have thought that David himself would have taken the time and effort to at least address the community, it was David who pitched the project, David who's hyped it.. and David who is inevitably the one most backers hold responsible.

I've said myself I don't care about offline mode, but I do care about the way this is being handled from a community and public relations point of view and it really makes me wince which is saying something because when i'm well enough to work I'm normally the one those I work for keep away from customers because grumpy programmer tends to tell the customers the truth about their issue being at the interface point (eg user error). But even I know that this should and could have been handled better.

I said it earlier, baring those who obviously can not play with out offline mode for whom no matter what certain people on this thread may think is a VALID and LEGITIMATE reason and you have no right to state that it is not, you do not live in their shoes, you do not have their exact set of circumstances etc and unless you do you are in no place to judge why they require offline mode. But moving to what I was saying, Baring those who obviously can not play with out offline mode, I believe that the large majority of the rest of us who are feeling betrayed by this would largely be at least some what satified if David at least had the integrity to come and address the issue himself. There is not a person here on either side of the argument who can honestly with a straight face say the way this has been handled to date is 'Right' or that the way it was delivered in the newsletter was even remotely the correct way of doing it, instead all this weekend has shown is that the Community Management and Public Relations Handling seems to be sorely lacking.

Michael I can understand your likely angry your seeing people lash out at something you and your friends and co-workers have put heart and soul into, but stone walling isn't going to address anything, one line answers aren't and generally 'Because I said' isn't either, we know you have a deadline 2 1/2 days for 3.9 and 4 1/2 days for 'Pre-release' but really is taking 30 minutes out to sit with David, your Community Managers and actually write a proper statement addressing the issue FULLY, OPENLY and UPFRONT as well as addressing the other concerns being brought up by those who have almost as much invested in this as you do (we the community do with out us you don't have a market remember.. we are the people who want to buy your game)?

I know you guys want to keep things 'under wraps' for the 22nd, no one is asking for you to revel everything, but you seriously need to address what is going on, you need to start communicating and you need to start alaying fears and speculation because it is not only hurting the general atmosphere of the community here but it is HURTING Frontiers reputation and it's goodwill.


There are those here who say that 'vocal' minority this is, maybe it is.. but 'vocal' minorities have some times turned out to be 'majorities' and they have also had massive impact especially with online gaming.. I know there are a LOT of Eve players here... Do I have to mention the Jita Riot/demonstration to remind you how things like this can turn? Or the general backflip that CCP has been forced to make over the last 2 years and refocusing of its 'priorities'? Those with the Eve background should know more than any other group just how important community feedback and communication between Devs and Community is.


But to every one one either side of this most likely 5600 post thread by the time I'm done.. take a breath stop attacking each other, stop trolling each other.. BOTH sides of this argument are both passionate about ELITE that much should be down right clear, sniping and attacking each other it's not going to help.. Instead how about actually agreeing that Both sides DO have valid points and that Frontier while maybe justified have made a serious error in the Handling of this and ask them to address at least THAT segment.

I'll finish this essay now.. My views on the actual issue beyond this are already known earlier around page 20 or so.

Regards.
 
So they didn't made every *reasonable* effort then?

Do you think they have? Honestly?! I've said before - post their full and frank reasons along with the efforts they went to, an apology to those affected and offer full, unconditional refunds - that I would deem a reasonable effort to bring it to satisfying conclusion given that they cannot deliver the most satisfying conclusion itself (actually delivering offline mode.)
 
So un-subscribe if you are so aggrieved. All of those are legitimate concerns with the lack of offline play.

How can "Griefing" be a legitamate concern? Or even part of this discusion?

They did not remove the ability to play SOLO mode. IE... The mode where you do not ever see another player...

They simply require everyone to play whilst connected to the galaxy server... To ensure a rich and vibrant galaxy to play in.
 
Hi Michael,
Probably not as the same issues would apply then as they do now.

Michael
I think it would help the community to comprehend this decision if someone were to write a detailed, technical explanation of what's done server-side, along with the reasons why it's technically infeasible to provide a cut-down (or even static) offline version of that. For instance:

  • What are the implications of a local server running full galaxy simulation?
  • What are the implications of a local server running a cut-down simulation?
  • What are the implications of providing networking interfaces to allow the community to deliver their own offline implementation?
  • What are the implications of removing the networking aspect entirely?
  • What would a 'compromised vision' version of the game look like, and why would that be unacceptable?

It's my (humble!) opinion that much of the furore surrounding this decision is down to poor communication. Give the community the facts, without soundbites, and allow them to form opinions that are based on fact rather than on supposition (which is all we have right now).
 
You're joking, right? o_O!

No not joking. Simply offering a refund is a very cheap get out of jail card, the money used by pledges has generated more pledges through game development. People who have pledged on the promise of an offline mode have seen the game develop and with it's development more pledges have been gathered which in turn continue to do this cycle (like a snowball effect). So the actual value of an earlier pledge now is worth vastly more than the monetary value of that pledge.

Pledges are investments in the process used to generate an end product. If that end product differs from the promised one at the last minute it's not hard to see why those investors would be mad at being kept in the dark. I won't be asking for a refund but I empathise with those who will be, especially long term backers who were expecting an offline mode.
 
Probably not as the same issues would apply then as they do now.

Michael

But FD are promising to cover the situation should the project go belly up and the servers get taken down in the future?

I am struggling to reconcile the insurmountable problems with doing it right now, and by the above, also post release / prior to planetary landings, and the promise to fix it up if the servers are to be taken down.
 
The basic fact of being able to interact online with our community during development has been tremendous. Just as in a film, based on feedback some of the things we originally thought would work have been left ‘on the cutting room floor’.

Fraud? Deceit? What are you all on?

The World that backers have asked for and desired, since the original kickstarter, has made offline practically untenable. And yet, at the same time:

We have also added unplanned features which I think are fundamentally key to the experience, and have made the game all the better. For example shifting design emphasis towards fantastic major new features such as supercruise, outposts and multiple ship ownership, to name just a few.

So you lose a fully off-line version, but no-one promised you multiple ship ownership in the Kickstarter. So... would you like them to remove the dynamic universe so you can play a static game?

Stop trolling. Well done F Dev!
 
Abscence of offline mode - official response from Frontier Elite 2 veteran

Hi there, I am Commander Markus.

I am a veteran of Frontier: Elite 2. I actually played it back when it was new and on the actual hardware it was supposed to be on. Albeit I was only 3 or 4 years old. That game still stays with me even today. It's the only game on my PC desktop from beyond 10 years ago, and that I play atleast once a week. It was the first piece of media to fire my imagination, and still does to this day. If my dad hadn't fired up an Amiga emulator and played it when I was around 10 or 11 years old, I probably wouldn't be here saying this, nor absolutely mad about the Elite franchise - or I used to be. Elite: Dangerous is an absolute chalk board scratch of a game to not just play, but moreso WATCH someone play. The thing that drew me to Frontier Elite 2 was the way you lived in a world without server crashes, broadband cut outs, annoying 12 year olds shooting at you as you come out the station, anacondas getting wedged sideways in the scaffolding surrounding station openings, impossible missions, program freezes when buying an item that has been bought by another player (well, we think that's what happened when we tried to buy a better shield generator but took ages discussing pros and cons), hyperspace sequences that resembled slideshows... the list goes on. And that's only the beginning.

What I'm trying to say is this game doesn't have any sense of continuity, EVERYTHING is a dead end. Atleast in Frontier you either lost or won, whether it be trading, bounty hunting, assassinations or anything you could do really. In those days, it was a mild inconvenience only making a few credits profit or not getting a passenger somewhere within a month, you didn't get a million credits fine for not completing a mission that was failed due to bugs. The challenge was genuine - a game made in the times when game makers knew how to make games.

15 years ago my dad came up to my room to tell me about a new page that had appeared on the Frontier Developments website hinting at a new Elite game. Back then, I imagined First Encounters with enhanced graphics. For years my mind wondered what the faces on the bulletin board would look like. One of my main things that I looked forward to when I heard Frontier were seeking funding for this game was the possibility of random 3D faces. My dreams have been shattered by the absence of any attempt to create emotional investment in NPC's in the game. I remember distinctly how when my dad started playing the game again (Elite 2), once you had progressed through the ranks, the NPC's would get increasingly interesting. Now they just resemble a FINE, as you know the mission will be impossible or buggy.

A 2014 version of FE2 was what I expected... Now I am not putting the original Elite down in any way, but I feel that Frontier Dev do not want to entertain the people that are the reason Elite is still alive today. A good portion of Elite: Dangerous players started with Frontier. Frontier was in many respects, the better game (compared with Elite, although I admire the technical leap it involved). It had a warmth to it that helped it to become in my opinion, the best game ever made. Mainly because it didn't need internet. I agree massively with someone else who said the only reason (I think it was on Facebook) Frontier Dev mentioned an offline mode was to get the 40 year old former BBC Micro owners interested in the game. It also got me interested after I went through a period of not being interested because it was going to be all online.

I am sorry if this has been said countless times, but Frontier Elite 2 really was a defining part of my childhood, and that is what I represent. Elite: Dangerous is like giving a 2 year old a piece of paper and crayons, telling it to use Elite and Frontier as artistic inspiration, and getting a completely random scribble, maybe the odd stick man with a circle head with the elite logo as a hat. To top it all off, I felt nauseous/dizzy at some of the things in the game in previous betas, like the system failure where it spins. Wouldn't be surprised if the games source code was written with one of those £9.99 game creator "lite" products PC World sells. Its that plastic and buggy.

Do another Kickstarter this time for a 2014 version of FE2, and I will donate, cos I am relieved as anything I didn't for Elite Dangerous. Although my dad paid £100 for the Beta.
 
No not joking. Simply offering a refund is a very cheap get out of jail card, the money used by pledges has generated more pledges through game development. People who have pledged on the promise of an offline mode have seen the game develop and with it's development more pledges have been gathered which in turn continue to do this cycle (like a snowball effect). So the actual value of an earlier pledge now is worth vastly more than the monetary value of that pledge.

Pledges are investments in the process used to generate an end product. If that end product differs from the promised one at the last minute it's not hard to see why those investors would be mad at being kept in the dark. I won't be asking for a refund but I empathise with those who will be, especially long term backers who were expecting an offline mode.

Dude, I'm advocating an apology and the offer of full refunds and even I think you're going too far! :D

What you say may have some element of truth but it's almost impossible to quantify so the absolute best FD could do is offer refunds of the actual amounts.
 
Poor Michael. He's the only one with any nuts to come on here, and then we all team up on him like he was a sidewinder in Freeport....

But, seriously. FD. HAAAALLLLLLLLLOOOOOO????? A little bit more communication. Mikey does not like to be roasted. And we dont want to have to do it.

Goodnight. Had enough shochu. Had enough pew pew too. It would be nice if I was able to do it offline too...

What more do you want these guys to say?

its in the official newsletter

there are 37 seperate posts by Michael saying no, and why no
 
Computer Requirements

Elite: Dangerous will be released on Windows PC and three months later on Apple Macintosh computers.
The Beta is available only on Windows. You will be able to download the released game on Windows and/or Macintosh computers once it is available, at no extra charge.
Development of the game is ongoing, and so recommended specifications are currently only available for the Beta builds.
Minimum recommended hardware specification:

Direct X 11
Quad Core CPU ( 4 x 2Ghz is a reasonable minimum)
2 GB System RAM (more is always better)
DX 10 hardware GPU with 1GB video ram
Nvidia GTX 260
ATI 4870HD
Internet connection

Supported Operating Systems:

Windows 7.x
Windows 8.x


i marked the important thing from: http://www.elitedangerous.com/about/
 
Computer Requirements

Elite: Dangerous will be released on Windows PC and three months later on Apple Macintosh computers.
The Beta is available only on Windows. You will be able to download the released game on Windows and/or Macintosh computers once it is available, at no extra charge.
Development of the game is ongoing, and so recommended specifications are currently only available for the Beta builds.
Minimum recommended hardware specification:

Direct X 11
Quad Core CPU ( 4 x 2Ghz is a reasonable minimum)
2 GB System RAM (more is always better)
DX 10 hardware GPU with 1GB video ram
Nvidia GTX 260
ATI 4870HD
Internet connection

Supported Operating Systems:

Windows 7.x
Windows 8.x


i marked the important thing from: http://www.elitedangerous.com/about/

Nice spot! Well done.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom