No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

undercovergeek

U
SalsaDMA said:
Incorrect. They stated something was part of the product. Flat out.
Now they state it will no longer be part of the product.

That's not about disagreements of opinions, but rather black and white showcasing that they said one thing and then changed it afterwards. Hence the feeling that it is impossible to trust what they say when they have displayed already that they can change at a moments notice.
Click to expand...

have you applied for a refund?
 

Martin1956

Martin1956
Tongue in cheek, but....

I suspect that the number of people who want the offline only game is limited. Vocal but limited, so perhaps download the tutorials and send them out on a DVD called "Elite Dangerous - Offline" and be done with it. :D
 

tagos

tagos
I understand what people mean when they say they want to be the only ones causing change. However after playing solo online a lot I can honestly say you really won't notice. The universe seems pretty static anyway. Its not like wars are breaking out all over. Generally playing ED solo online feels like i'm playing a graphically improved lost solo version of Elite released sometime between 1984 and 1990. If I want to pause I'll log out to menu. There's nothing that really suggests other players are doing stuff behind the curtain.

This doesn't help those that cannot play online of course.
 

Binerexis

Binerexis
WeirdWizard said:
Okay your are working on piece of software, one of your requirements is it work offline. If you end up with a piece of software that doesn't work offline I'd say you've done something incorrectly...
Click to expand...

Poor analogy.

A closer analogy is that you're working on a piece of software where the intention from the beginning of the design phase is that it runs online but also has an offline mode for users who want that. If you then end up with software that works per the original design and everything is progressing as intended with the exception that it's no longer feasible to implement the optional offline mode, I'd say you still have a fully working product without an optional feature and those who bought the software in development solely for that feature can ask for their money back.
 

Titus Balls

Titus Balls
SalsaDMA said:
Incorrect. They stated something was part of the product. Flat out.
Now they state it will no longer be part of the product.

That's not about disagreements of opinions, but rather black and white showcasing that they said one thing and then changed it afterwards. Hence the feeling that it is impossible to trust what they say when they have displayed already that they can change at a moments notice.
Click to expand...

Well I don't agree with you.

I do feel Frontier could have communicated the decision earlier and in a better manner than they did, but as a design goal it simply cannot be met at this time, possibly and probably never.

Doesn't mean I have any less faith in the company to take the wasted resources and turn it in to something much better with online.

I don't ask, or want you, to speak on my behalf on the matter.
 

mbpoblet

mbpoblet
Cathy said:
There's a counter concern: if the content that attracts players is so dependant on multiplayers' actions, and at any given time there aren't enough players to generate enough dynamic content, so some players get bored and leave, so there's less dynamic content, so more players get bored and leave... Is that possible?

Isn't it risky to make your content so dependant on the multiplayer experience? And if it's not so vulnerably dependant, why can't you make it offline too?
Click to expand...

Very good point. This is a DRM issue, not a practical or design one.
 

jhondidfool

J
Zuikaku said:
Well, don't really know what to say about this.
I was so excited when founded out that work is being done on new Elite. Backed it without any hesitation. It was like dreams coming true at last. Been living for all new and old features and eagerly waiting for every newsletter.
But now, I feel somewhat dissappointed and shocked (and by some degree even tricked) by decision of Frontier developments about abandoning offline mode. Frontier Developments have build up reputation in this community for being trustworthy and reliable. It was famous for listening for players wishes and needs. What happened out there? Frontier developments were fully aware that there are decent percentage of players who pledged only because of promised fully playable offline single player mode. Something become suspicious to me more than a year ago when every feature (especially hyperspace) was adjusted for online play.
Why it is so hard to understand that some of the players do prefer single player mode? Why it is so hard to understand that some of us planned to play Elite dangerous when at trips or away from country or away from internet connection?
Some of us are not interested in online play, and want to play exclusively with NPCs in glaxy evolving regardless of servers and players who are playing online. When I restart the game, I want galaxy to be at the "starting point". We do not want to be connected to other player's universes! It is not exciting and cool to some of us. Not to mention that I find requirement for permanent internet connection intrusive, agressive and offending. We have backed and payed for something else! Why are you forcing us to consider refunding?
Are we basically getting another annoying EVE online? Or Starcitizen?
Don't get me wrong, I'm the fan of the Elite from the moment I first saw it. I was living for the day the new Elite will come. But without fully playable offline single player it does not make any sense for me any more.
I'm happy for all the players that were excited with online multiplayer Elite. Hope they will enjoy it just like we all enjoyed previous Elite titles. But this decision will leave considerable number of players dissappointed.
Click to expand...

<SNIP> You may consider a refund, but unless you have a phisical inability to play the game on-line, you bought a game in developement hence constant flux. That means you will get exactly the product you paid for, which may or may not be the one they pitched 2 years ago. But the one they have been painstaikingly working at for those 2 years. With the little programming experience I have, I can tell you ED is no small feat at all. You're just complaining about a lamborghini because you don't like the matte finish and you wanted it glossy.

I find all these people claiming refund quite annoying. I have crappy internet and can play multiplayer from my phone's 3G connection just fine. Unless you have 56kbps you're just complaining either because you're a paranoid and don't want to be connected to the Internet or because you're afraid of human interaction. Neither of those are FD's fault and neither should warrant a refund.

<SNIP>You're getting your money's worth of FD's sweat and tears. That's what you paid for. That's what they've given us. If you don't like the taste is not their fault.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vlodec

Banned
Vlodec
I really wish this "fraud" issue hadn't reared its ugly head. One never knows of course, but really, it seems so unlikely that a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated, and all it does is distract attention.

Can we drop the "fraud" thing? Please?
 

Titus Balls

Titus Balls
CaptainKremmen said:
Hi folks.

I just wrote way too much text on some technical musings about the OFFLINE mode removal. You're welcome to read and comment.

Warning: It's sadly devoid of any emotion, as I'm actually a soulless robot. It's also lacking any discussion on apparent poor corporate communication style, or prior project plan assessments about the viability of OFFLINE mode, or kickstarter, or moderators. Yes, you got it - it's pretty dry! Still, it might be thought-provoking for some with a technical bent (most of us qualify, I reckon!!).
Click to expand...

Good post sir
 

phlOgistOn

P
jamotide said:
If the creators went belly up, then you are obviously boned. But that is not the case here.
Click to expand...

But there's definitely situations where KS investors have got absolutely nothing back from a project - that is the inherent risk of the setup.

Now I'm pretty sure that there will be some kind of refunds for KS users - but expecting 100% is almost unreasonable in my eyes since they're pretty much 2 months away from the end of a 2 year dev cycle - they could quite legitimately say they've spent 90% of your pledge already.

Deciding on the cutoff for refunds and the publicitity ramifications at this stage IS a business decision which will come down to shareholders, legal professionals and company executives, which is a horrible fact of 21st century life - but probably how things are gonna roll and probably why you're not seeing direct answers here that will put a noose around their necks and make them legally culpable if stated incorrectly. I imagine DB has probably been a very busy man today discussing such matters with the necessary people!
 

SJT

S
Titus Balls said:
Well I don't agree with you.

I do feel Frontier could have communicated the decision earlier and in a better manner than they did, but as a design goal it simply cannot be met at this time, possibly and probably never.

Doesn't mean I have any less faith in the company to take the wasted resources and turn it in to something much better with online.

I don't ask, or want you, to speak on my behalf on the matter.
Click to expand...

It can be met. It is not impossible. However, they are unwilling to invest any resource into bringing it about because they think they will not receive enough return for that investment. It is much more of a business decision than a technical one.
 

SalsaDMA

SalsaDMA
SuBSynk said:
Calling someone a fraudster fits the definition and has been used by some of the more intense posters.

"someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed"

"statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed."

I do not even know why we are discussing it though as its all very silly to throw legal definitions about over such matters in my opinion and very off topic.

Would be nice if people stayed on topic and stopped talking of refunds in this thread, as pointed out -countless times- this is not the place for that.
Click to expand...

to be honest, I can't remember the specific posts where people mentioned fraudster, but if they stated it something like "I think that X is a fraudster", then they are in the clear, depending on local laws, ofc.

That's whay I said it's important to note if there is a personal opinion being aired or direct "attacks".

"X is a fraud!" and "I think X is a fraud!" are to very different things in this particular case (at least in my region)
 

vjek

V
Martin1956 said:
I suspect that the number of people who want the offline only game is limited. Vocal but limited, so perhaps download the tutorials and send them out on a DVD called "Elite Dangerous - Offline" and be done with it. :D
Click to expand...
Given how the tutorials work offline, it does call into question the validity of their claims it can't be done, eh?

Oh, actually, scratch that..

Given how all the other games in the Elite franchise work offline, it does call into question the validity of their claims it can't be done, eh?

There we go. All good, now. ;)
 

Richie_B

R
SalsaDMA said:
Are you claiming that when you actively design something, you have no control of what you design?
The whole point of software designs is to reach what you intend the software package to do.
Click to expand...
No, I am clearly not claiming that. I am saying that you appear not to understand how intent functions in English law & that making judgements likely to inflame on the basis of misunderstanding is not-helpful.
The post I have quoted merely emphasises my point.
 

Angus

Angus
Binerexis said:
And Michael Brookes has said in this thread that with the game in its current state, it isn't possible. It may have been possible in the past but that is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

Well he said it wasn't impossible since the Friday newsletter, that might mean the offline version being more of a separate entitiy than was envisioned, I don't know...... but just repeating that its impossible seems unlikely to earn credibility.
 

synchromesh

synchromesh
Originally Posted by SalsaDMA View Post

Incorrect. They stated something was part of the product. Flat out.
Now they state it will no longer be part of the product.

That's not about disagreements of opinions, but rather black and white showcasing that they said one thing and then changed it afterwards. Hence the feeling that it is impossible to trust what they say when they have displayed already that they can change at a moments notice.
Click to expand...

So you order a 3 piece suite in brown.......2 days before delivery the suppliers tell you they can only supply Grey....But they offer you a choice of that or your money back..
As long as a refund is offered all legal obligations have been met .... Disappointing but a fact of life I guess :(
 

SuBSynk

SuBSynk
SalsaDMA said:
to be honest, I can't remember the specific posts where people mentioned fraudster, but if they stated it something like "I think that X is a fraudster", then they are in the clear, depending on local laws, ofc.

That's whay I said it's important to note if there is a personal opinion being aired or direct "attacks".

"X is a fraud!" and "I think X is a fraud!" are to very different things in this particular case (at least in my region)
Click to expand...

If you are really interested to see them just go back a few pages, no mention of "i think" or "in my opinion" just flat out accusations of crime.

Lets just leave it there though its pretty silly anyhow and i'm sure the posters will be busy editing away as i type this or feeling pretty embarrassed now they have had a chance to calm down ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom