No Single Player offline Mode then?

[noodle]

Ultimatley the foundations of this game revolved around players who years ago were quite happy to play for years on their own offline, naturally in todays huge corporate gaming world that would be a business disaster.

Erm, yeah. Skyrim never made a penny.

 

[psyron]

It's interesting that other questions are taking a much lower profile in the fall-out from off-line-gate. I'm actually more concerned about the state of the product that's about to be launched. A lot of people are putting a positive spin on things, talking about on-going development etc. But if anyone had asked us nine months ago what we expected the game to look like at launch, I think we'd have anticipated a much more fully-featured, bug-free product than this. And this isn't negativity or whining. I still want the game to succeed, and despite my irritation with the way FD are (not) communicating, I still wish them every success.

I can not agree on this. I would never have anticipated a better game that we already got. Sure the expansions are what i am looking for, but the framework for planetary landing is there, everything is prepared and it will come!

Look at Star Citizen for example. They promised so much but till these days they delivered nearly nothing - apart form many commercials i wouldn't give a penny for. And the release of their game will be delayed for many many years (if it really will be released at all).

Edit:

considering the (relatively, in commercial dev terms) low budget and short dev cycle, what they've done so far is excellent. To think otherwise shows a lack of knowledge re: such things.

I agree.

 

[Pulse]

Frontier don't agree, apparently:


(From the newsletter.)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

considering the (relatively, in commercial dev terms) low budget and short dev cycle, what they've done so far is excellent. To think otherwise shows a lack of knowledge re: such things.

 

[fullerm]

They did - it was funded in Jan 2013.

Yay!

...broken Nov 2014. :....(

 

[Biffa]

The worry is that 'offline-gate' might have increased the chances of a 'ready-for-release-gate' happening. The fluffy feeling for FD has gone, trust is broken so I can see a far less forgiving player base judging the release.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

Has anyone considered that maybe if there was an offline version available then maybe later on down the line there may be a danger that players will opt to go offline instead because of 'issues' with the online version?

Issues being- Server problems/downtimes, Sales spam, information leaks, pay to win, bugged releases, imbalances, exploits etc.

There is a chance that if any of the above issues were to occur (which they will) then people who opt to go offline won't come back and their friends in third parties won't be happy (Amazon etc).

Those are the exact reasons I would have liked an offline version.

 

[Gazz]

RESOURCES, yes!
Many people don't believe it, fine. But that's what they say and i believe them. And it makes absolutely sense when you see the scale of the game they are targeting for. They can't afford to continue to develope 2 separate games. The only thing they might be able to do is to say "ok, fine, we will do a very limited offline-version, but it will not be supported in the future and all the extra expansions will not be available for it, since this would mean to continue to support TWO games till the end of all time!".
But i don't think people would be very happy with this alternative!
Once all the expansions like panetary landing will come out offline-players would cry and shout "we want those expansions too!!!".

Don't you guys see the dilemma FD is facing?

No?

Make the server code a separate executable (which it is now) that runs in tandem with the offline client.
That way there is no separate code base. It's "fake online" and since it only simulates a tiny fraction of the universe, it doesn't require a lot of memory or CPU power.

They pretty clearly stated that they don't want to. It's not The Vision and it would reveal how little actual content (*) is in their dynamic universe.
With a "secret" server they can always claim to have added this and that much content - you just haven't personally found it, yet.
With an offline server, people would be able to verify that.



(*) "Players running out of content" is a big issue with games. PG is no magic wand.
Happened recently with the Godus mobile release, for instance. Players were gobbling up the content about 6 times as fast as the devs projected. (that game has more issues than that but that's another story)

 

[Geehawk]

Correct, if you want to play online in a solo environment that is affected by the rest of the multiplayer community but simply not interact directly with them, you can.

That's the thing that confuses me most.
I don't want to interact with people, I don't have to, that's fine. But I do have to play in a world where the environment changes due to stuff that other people do. So I'm effectively occupying a 'galaxy' where stuff changes by 'poltergeist'. I could be happily trading stuff one day, then a week later (because I have a life that stops me gaming for hours on end, not a lack of internet) I will find stuff has changed.

Offline would enable an uninterrupted chronology to my disrupted play time, where as having stuff continue to happen (while I'm in the real world) based on the actions of others does not.

I only preorderd a week or so ago right after the release date was announced, but have been waiting and watching progress much longer. I'm tempted to cancel my order, but will probably wait and see what happens over the next week first.

 

[Tumbleweed Ted]

All,

I can understand a lot of the issues people have with the off-line mode being dropped, regardless of their reasons. I personally would have liked a fully off line mode but the on-line single player mode ticks my box. My only reason for wanting to play solo is that I have no desire engage in PvP or be subject to griefing and to stay out of the whole PvP culture, at least until I'm more comfortable with my aging abilities And I guess online single player gives me the options I need.

 

[Gazz]

Here you go guys: ^^^^^^^^

...you looked like you where running out of molehills.

Whack-A-Mole as the new replacement for That Game Mode?
Better than nothing, I guess...

 

[deusx_ophc]

i am going to collect a few sock puppets soon, anyone needs?!

 

[rebelredneck]

What bugs me in 2014 is the lack of apparant, pride games companies take in their games or their customers. Nearly every game being released nowadays either is bugged, incomplete or receives a massive day one patch to fix some basic errors, which should have been picked up in testing. I hoped FD making ED would have been different but with 16th Dec looming fast I am not too sure.

 

[beelbeebub]

No, there's no cross purpose, you're attempting to make a false comparison. An email client is specifically designed to access a remote server, you can in theory point it to a corporate intranet as well and that would work just as efficiently. A twitter client is specifically designed to access the twitter API and therefore is bound up to the twitter service which is an internet based application. These are intrinsically internet (or corporate intranet) in nature.

Whereas Elite Dangerous is fundamentally non functional without authentication and validation from the Frontier network servers, you don't get to choose that, you're not offered a choice either in how you access, whereas if you have issues with tweetdeck or thunderbird, you can always pick another client that works with the relevant API's.

To be clear, you will not be able to modify the client without breaking the EULA and risking an account ban, you will not be able to cheat in singleplayer mode, you will be affected by other players regardless of your chosen mode, the Elite Dangerous client as of now is no different than the client used for say MMO's, and therefore acts as always on DRM.

I suspect this will go in circles right now ED has DRM, the login launcher bit. I'm guessing this was to ensure only alpha/beta backers could actually play. After all why back beta when you could just download it and play.
-
If the login was moved from a launcher to the menu, allowing the use of offline functions (tutorials) then I would consider ED to be DRM free. In the same way tweetdeck would be. The fact that there is no access to the galaxy (online) without an internet connection and a login does not make ED DRM.
-
Imagine there was a tweetdeck game "twitter rap battles" where you competed in 140 character rap battles with other players over twitter (hey, that's not a bad idea!... I'm off to kickstarter!). Assuming you had a login to twitter, if you didn't have a net connection, you couldn't play the game, not particularly because tweetdeck couldn't authenticate you, but because the game is being on line, how can you have a rap battle with yourself (without being labelled a nutter)?
-
DRM is a sensitive issue. There have been terrible implementations in the past, things like only being able to install the app once, or on one computer, or more than 3 times ever. Those were terrible no doubt about it.
-
I wouldn't consider, having to be online to play an online game DRM. If they provided an offline mode, but you still had to be online to authenticate the game throughout, that would be DRM (and bloody stupid), but the online solo isn't DRM.

 

[sgk]

I have seen people in the forums mention an offline only version, but was this ever mentioned by FD?

Offline only version would be my preferred version too. Odd to suddenly announce it's online-only, after what was said in the Kickstarter campaign.

 

[mbpoblet]

But you still have to put up with their grubby fingers all over your galaxy... Sorry Frontier Developments rich deep and engaging galaxy. grumble, grumble.

Frankly, as I exposed earlier this whole "dynamic galaxy" thing doesn't seem to make much sense... players are outnumbered by NPCs at least a million to one, and there are around ten players per inhabited star (and at least half a million uninhabited stars per player), we don't have guilds, corporations, or any kind of organization, and we're supposed to be unimportant regular joes... what influence can we possibly hope to have, then, on the galaxy, or on other players (besides combat)?

 

[noodle]

I can not agree on this. I would never have anticipated a better game that we already got. Sure the expansions are what i am looking for, but the framework for planetary landing is there, everything is prepared and it will come!

Really? I agree that the framework is there for a great game, but I expected more than the framework at the time of release.

Look at Star Citizen for example. They promised so much but till these days they delivered nearly nothing - apart form many commercials i wouldn't give a penny for. And the release of their game will be delayed for many many years (if it really will be released at all).

"It's better than Star Citizen" isn't much of a defence for any game.

 

[psyron]

Frankly, as I exposed earlier this whole "dynamic galaxy" thing doesn't seem to make much sense... players are outnumbered by NPCs at least a million to one, and there are around ten players per inhabited star (and at least half a million uninhabited stars per player), we don't have guilds, corporations, or any kind of organization, and we're supposed to be unimportant regular joes... what influence can we possibly hope to have, then, on the galaxy, or on other players (besides combat)?

Because you didn't get it!

Yes, players are outnumbered compared to NPCs, but their influence towards how events will unfold will artificially be more important than compared to the influence NPCs will have. Therefore your conclusion is simply WRONG.

Edit:
For example the trades players are doing will change the marketplace prices much more than the actions of NPCs. Got it?

 

[mbpoblet]

The worry is that 'offline-gate' might have increased the chances of a 'ready-for-release-gate' happening. The fluffy feeling for FD has gone, trust is broken so I can see a far less forgiving player base judging the release.

Frankly, if "ready-for-release-gate" happens I expect most of us "offliners" will just gloomily welcome the protesters to the ranks of the disappointed so we can commiserate together... after a heartfelt "we're sorry to say we told you so... but we told you so", of course.

 

[Fishy]

Very very disappointed... I'm not looking for a refund and will enjoy the game for what it is, but i was hoping for Elite 4, not a World of Elite.

I wanted a save/load facility, to save a situation and practice it as i saw fit, like skimming a sun, speed docking, racing through a busy lane, or how-many-police-vipers-can-i-take-down-with-me? The kind of experiments a sandbox allows. Without an offline mode with a save feature, this goes down the drain, costing the ship and the time to get back into the situation before i'm allowed another try.

The wait for Elite 4 is still on then, it's a pity it won't come from FD.

 

[Biffa]

Why do I feel like Solo Online (now our only real choice) will be a bit like coming home from a hard day at work only to find that someones been sleeping in your bed while you were away and has stunk up all the covers?