No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

SuBSynk

SuBSynk
Rampant said:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not read the FD answers to why offline could not be included, working on this aspect of the game would most definitely "dilute" the game and lead to it not having as many features etc as a lot of time would have to be spent on some kind of workaround.

It is of course selfish to expect a majority of players to suffer an inferior experience in order to adjust to the whims of a minority. That is just a statement of fact sorry.

Any more time spent on this issue would be time taken away from enriching the experience for the majority, so whilst an offline mode would be great for some of you FD have stated its not on the cards now.

If it would take up significant amounts of dev time to accomplish and it has already stated that this is the case then i for one would not be that happy to see planetary landings etc put back to appease this small -albeit vocal- minority.

Please will you stop posting as though you speak for me, no-one has "breached my trust" and i prefer to choose who i attack rather than have you speak on my behalf.
 
Last edited:

Warbler

W
@Michael Brookes

Newsletter #49 implies that solo mode will be neither fully online nor fully offline. Can you shed any light on this please?

Quotes from newsletter #49: "the single player has to connect to the server from time to time"
 
Last edited:

Havner

Havner
Hadar said:
@Michael Brooks

Newsletter #49 implies that solo mode will be neither fully online nor fully offline. Can you shed any light on this please?

Quotes from newsletter #49: "the single player has to connect to the server from time to time"
Click to expand...

He already has. Sadly it's the single-player on-line we have now in beta. Constant connection required.
 

Nomadski

Nomadski
Niewinter said:
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/
Click to expand...

Iirc that was added later. In fact, when I plumped down my moolah that site didn't even exist. Plus when asked for clarification, it was clarified (incorrectly now as it turns out) that offline was a supported mode. Even when a mod asked this question.

Somebody MUCH earlier in the thread tried to find the latest time offline was mentioned as being included, and it was as short as a month ago.

Now I know Michael said it was because they wanted to try everything to make it work, but that isn't what they have said previous to Friday. They have said 'You can play Elite Dangerous offline'. There is a distinct difference between what was said and what is being said now, and that's why Juniper, Tim, and myself, among many others have been asking for clarification, or at least some form of apology for the way it has been handled.

While some are in this thread purely to antagonise, and prod other users, some of us are here to help us make very real decisions based on whether we want to plug ahead on this journey or not - FD really aren't contributing much positive in this respect so far.
 

Pomerlaw

Pomerlaw
I'm sorry for people with no internet, but I understand why Frontier did it.

Things change! I hope if its a deal breaker for you you get a refund.
 

Aldric

A
I just want to say that i do genuinley hope that for those people that are upset by the no offline thing that they do mange to keep the game and enjoy it, i realise it is of major concern to some people here and i can and do sympathise.

Just wanted to express that here.

Fly safe Commanders. :)
 

jamotide

J
Steve50 said:
I'm personally not asking for a refund but I'm worried about my friend, he paid £100 at the kickstarter for the collectors edition and he's got no home net. Now I've read that kickstarters can't get a refund and that I don't like. It's not his fault that he can't play the game, I also feel pretty guilty as I talked him into buying it, saying it would work fine offline. I hope he is allowed a refund.
Click to expand...

Dont worry about it...some people said alot of things in this thread. But kickstarter is clear on this, the company is legally bound to refund the money, if they dont deliver the pledge rewards. And with this Always on DRM, they cant deliver his DRM free box edition.
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter
 

bamber

B
I have a new kick starter idea
>
Start a fund to compensate those aggrieved so much they want a refund - (by the polls it shouldnt need much but boy do they shout loud)
>
Anyone compensated must vow to do two things
.
1. Never ever play Elite again in any form
2. Never purchase any piece of software that doesnt give software support
3. Never post on the Elite forum again
.
If they do any of the above they have to pay in five times the amount they were refunded to a fund set up to maintain the servers.
.
The five times shouldnt be an issue - by their own admission its so bad they would never do it EVER
 

Dave Leestir

Dave Leestir
SalsaDMA said:
Considered 'offline mode' was quite possible in the elite I played on my c64 and later on on frontier on my amgia500, the fact that you seemingly have design issues now tells that you designed your software wrong.

It's that simple, really.

So was it incompentence that made you not realize the issue with your design WHILE YOU DESIGNED IT, or did you never intend for offline anyway?

Anyone with a background in software projects knows that block designs of what code is supposed to achieve doesn't magically happen by itself, but is carefully designed (as well as the interactions between blocks) before you start coding. Hence the 'design' aspect of software projects before you start coding. If you now state the design doesn't let you do what you promised, and you made the design yourself, it only really puts your company in a bad light, regardless of which way you try to polish it.
.
Click to expand...

+1, there was a design decision taken a long time ago which precluded the willing production of an offline version - admit that FD.
 

Windsaw

W
Michael Brookes said:
The decision was made so that we could focus on getting the game done and to match what we desired from the game - so of course we're continuing with work.

Michael
Click to expand...
Maybe there is something wrong with how I understand businesses work:
Isn't it good practice that the developer makes the game the financers (backers, customers) desire of the game, not what the developers desire?
 

RGS

RGS
Pecisk said:
I don't think it's that easy. They didn't hope for this to slip under radar - they know how much people cared about this feature, and Michael's stressful comments clearly shows. But PR wise there's nothing David or Michael would say will ease the pain, or will make up to it. So it is better to shut up, take beating, and issue refunds when sensible requested.

They might come up with announcement...I am not FD...but I wouldn't be surprised if they won't do it.
Click to expand...

Well, in my opinion the way it was put in the newsletter was just pain wrong and inexcusable. If it couldn't have been said at an earlier date (which seems very unlikely, at least the potential of it not making it in must have been known for quite some time) then they should have said very clearly that offline mode has been dropped, apologised for such late notice and gone over the reasons in the newsletter or via another statement (separate statement would have been best, with a small piece in the NL IMO). They should have clearly stated that they are very sorry that some people will now not be able to play the game, but that after long and careful deliberation finally decided that there really was no other way. It was a very difficult decision to make, but sadly one they had to. Refunds would also be offered for any who felt strongly about the loss of this feature (as clearly some people simply will not be able to play at all now). I know that MB has since said some of these things in the forums, but a couple of lines here and there after the way it was presented in the NL doesn't strike me as sincere enough. Their backers deserved better than this; these words should have come with the 'announcement' not as a response to people understandably annoyed - Let's not forget that for some their ability to actually play the game had been pulled at the eleventh hour.

As said, I don't believe it was clearly stated in the news letter as people were actually asking "Does this mean no offline mode then?" If FD were going to drop the feature at this stage of the game no one should be have been wondering - It should have been crystal. It wasn't a minor issue to be brushed under the carpet or glossed over, but that's just what they did IMO.

Judging by MB's responses so far today, looks like you might be right about the lack of an official follow-up statement. That wouldn't be the right move IMO, but there you go. As I said, I want to get behind them again, hope they give me reason to do so.
 

Toscaner

T
Ericlas said:
I for myself am perfectly fine having read what Michael wrote.
I just wanted to sum up, what this discussion has turned into from my point of view.
Click to expand...

it's not only about how people feel treated
it's like any other <SNIP> goes from valid comlaints, over group dynamics into pure
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom