I would like to think it would have made it because all the previous games were offline too.
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I would like to think it would have made it because all the previous games were offline too.
We'll never know, but it's a good question. I think it would still have failed, to be honest. The "old guard" who were fans of the original had already made most of their pledges in the first couple of days. Without our man Jonty Campbell here, the KS could have failed. Without Liqua the KS could have failed. Without all of us in the comments pages keeping the dream alive the KS could have failed.
Who knows.
Well I have asked for a refund. Cancelling the offline mode means I will not be able to consistently play when I want to because of my poor / intermittent internet. I am also concerned that one day FD will turn off the servers so what am I paying for? I am not actually buying the game what I am paying for is access to the game and that access depends on them deciding to keep supporting it.
What is going to happen when everyone who want to buy the game has already bought it so there no more income for FD from ED but a continuing expense in running the servers. They will have no other option other than to make the game either subscription or micro transaction or close it down.
So farewell to the forum and I wish you all happy hunting. I also wish FD the best for the future but ED online is not for me.
What is going to happen when everyone who want to buy the game has already bought it so there no more income for FD from ED but a continuing expense in running the servers. They will have no other option other than to make the game either subscription or micro transaction or close it down.
So farewell to the forum and I wish you all happy hunting. I also wish FD the best for the future but ED online is not for me.
It was more a case of the confrontational way the options were phrased, but you knew that as that's what you intended. No biggie.
Vlodec
Banned
Perhaps that too would have failed. What's your point?
And I have to say, given the heat generated by this thread I really think it would be best if moderators didn't contribute. Really. Stay above it.
Basic math says they would. It would be very close, but they would made it.
Last edited:
This is anecdotal, but I would have still bought it.
Personally, the multiplayer aspect of this game isn't that great. It wants really badly to be an MMO and its not. No chat. No player trading. No player crafting. There is no group vs open options. No guilds or player run factions. This list goes on.
To me its an online single player game.
Why? Are they lesser players and backers of the game than you?
It doesn't matter what the intentions were, FD are the ones who elected to abandon a feature that many people based their pledge on. This is indisputable.
Again, the offline mode was announced by FD in the time of the Kickstarter and aswell after and has only canceled 1 month before release.
Many peoples bought and pledged because of it and even if they are only 10% does it make things right, that they don't got what was promised and where they was looking for? Does they have no right for a feature, what was promised and took them to pledge the game, even when they would have been a minority? They have done their part for the game aswell and given their money. So i am in doubt, that a 51% or more system does justify to act against any promises. And the game you pledged was promoted as an online AND OFFLINE game. If they wouldn't have said, that there would be an offline mode, we would have been fine, i wouldn't have pledged so much and things would be okay now. But well, they didn't.
Aswell we don't know the exact number of the peoples wanting a offline mode. I think there are a lot peoples not inside the forum, because they don't like to be in a community. Most likely this peoples, who where looking forward to an offline mode. The forum is online and an online community. So its not very surprising, that a lot of peoples here are okay with only an online mode and without an offline mode.
So again to the explanations from Frontier Developments. I haven't read anything making it in some way correct.
The expanation about, that an offline mode wouldn't be as good:
That is something, FD can't judge about. They don't know what other peoples would want to.
Technical difficulties:
We had it often enough, that a simplified but still realistic version could be made. Randomization for the datas for the offline game, seperated online and offline gameplay. And calculating of the gameworld in an overlay depending, if it is online or offline. In the online word, they could still calculate everything down to the smallest NPC.
Insufficient founds:
Because of insufficient founds, they shouldn't drop a key feature. They promised an offline mode and if they have to build a complete new game, then that was really bad planning. And that is not our fault.
Again, if they develop the mode after the release with additional founds they get from the sale, then it would be okay. Yes, that would be more development and more money. But for a promised feature, they would have to pay something. Every game feature cost money. Not releasing it, would destroy a lot of trust and would be bad PR. Even if many peoples are okay with it. Many peoples are not. And yes, many sites don't write very angry and very passive about it. But thats their job. An official statement from a magazine if online or not should be objective. No, i wouldn't write one, becaue i am to emotional about it. But think, peoples get the messege. Promised feature, not included, large feature aswell. Not good.
So after i have written this, i guess there are 10 more sites text so its unlikely i will answer anything today, becaue its getting late here. And tomorrow are possible 100 sites more. O.O
They weren't. That's why people are angry. Do you get it now?
Sleep well.
But you don't know that for sure......Your assuming they lied....Their version sounds more plausible if you really think about it
I always described it to people as "a single player game you can also play with your mates".
Vlodec
Banned
*sigh*, no they're not "lesser", they are however meant to be impartial, and just as importantly, meant to be seen as impartial. This becomes difficult the more they contribute to a thread, especially one as emotionally filled as this one.
psyron
Banned
No, sorry, you can't compare this. Planetary landing is one of the ultimate goal of DB, he stated this multiple times. Offline-mode was only a desired feature but not a main goal.
It's like the discussion about real newtonian flight mode vs the more atmoshperic flight mode we have now. Of couse FD have looked at both modes and simply came to the conclusion that the current flight mode is simply much more fun and i fully agree.
Same with the offline-mode. It was desired but not feasible at the end. I would have liked it too and i also would have like a better communication.
But i don't see it as a reason to accuse FD of being dishonest. I think people here in this thread are going to quickly into wrong conclusions.
Edit:
Bed where are you, sleep ....
Last edited:
Surely they are entitled to put their opinions here as much as anyone. Their job is to uphold the rules of the forum, not be faceless yes men.
It's too ambitious to make a game that is both an MMO-style game, and also works offline.
I am glad they will focus on the "online" mode, and not spend a huge effort converting it into an inferior offline version.
If they did make an offline version, it would be a constant weight around their necks, increasing the difficulty of every future development.
It is unreasonable to expect every "promise" or prediction to be fulfilled. No one can perfectly predict or plan for the future.
Some people are concerned that the game will not be playable in future, if the servers go offline. No one wants this game to survive forever more than the creators, David Braben and his team at Frontier. I am confident that if the servers go offline at some point in the distant future, then they will give us some way to continue playing the game, perhaps by releasing the server code to us as open source.
I am glad they will focus on the "online" mode, and not spend a huge effort converting it into an inferior offline version.
If they did make an offline version, it would be a constant weight around their necks, increasing the difficulty of every future development.
It is unreasonable to expect every "promise" or prediction to be fulfilled. No one can perfectly predict or plan for the future.
Some people are concerned that the game will not be playable in future, if the servers go offline. No one wants this game to survive forever more than the creators, David Braben and his team at Frontier. I am confident that if the servers go offline at some point in the distant future, then they will give us some way to continue playing the game, perhaps by releasing the server code to us as open source.
In case nobody responded to this already, it has been pointed out by more than one card-carrying DDF member that the DDF was -not- consulted on this particular matter.
If it's old news, never mind and carry on - I'm slowly catching up on the discussion.
-Toddler
All these people claiming they were duped, misled or there is some conspiracy to defraud them of their backer money. This is from the Kickstarter FAQ, a question titled: "How will single player work, will I need to connect to a server to play":
The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.
The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.
Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).
It says there that the intended single player is to be connected and only POSSIBLE to be able to play offline and they were to be investigating. In other words, there is nothing there that is a promise that you can play offline. Those that claimed that they only backed because of offline play simply gambled and lost. Not FDs fault.
The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.
The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.
Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).
It says there that the intended single player is to be connected and only POSSIBLE to be able to play offline and they were to be investigating. In other words, there is nothing there that is a promise that you can play offline. Those that claimed that they only backed because of offline play simply gambled and lost. Not FDs fault.
- Status