No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Vim]

Jonbe54, if DBraben can play it fine, on a train, over a cellphone tether - which, from experience is dropout city as one moves from cell to cell at high speed - then I'm pretty sure that any internet connection you can find will be sufficient for Solo play.

Um... that's nice and all, but... Why should I care?

Why would I want to play it solo if I have the time and opportunity to play online? And why would I want to play single player if I have to mess around with online logins and can't stop the game and come back to the same point later? It's a joke, combining the worst of both worlds without the benefits of either.

 

[Jonbe54]

To be fair the way we talk and debate issues in Australia among mates would shock a lot of people.

Well at least we're better than the South Korean parliament

 

[Juniper]

Unfortunately as Tar Stone suggests this thread, specifically this design decision to concentrate wholly on online connected ED over unconnected, is being picked up by the wider videogaming review, blog, Facebook, newswires and Twitter outlets. And, News being often in the business of creating news rather than reporting what is new - not entirely in a positive light. While the disappointment of those who wanted an offline play self contained version is very real and totally valid, venting our spleens on this frustration on these forums may be shouting into the wind when it is FD that should be contacted for any refund considerations. These very real frustrations over the KS and beta process expressed here in the forums, at times -it must be said- less than timidly - may, when combined with the gathering media coverage, begin to attract those to this forum and wider blogs to comment in less than positive words for reasons that are not entirely benign. Thus inadvertently, there is a very real danger that -particularly so close to Premier Launch day
and lanch day so near Christmas, that the well may be inadvertently poisoned.

Jonty, I get what you're trying to say here (and Tar Stone) I really do.

However, if Frontier are refusing refunds to backers as it seems like they are doing, then whilst Frontier may be legally within their rights to do as they please, it's not a very nice thing to do.

Faced with that kind of rebuttal and desertion, then what else are people to do? Simply: warn others. Make sure that people know that when they're buying the game - precisely who they are giving their money to.

It's worth remembering that the poisoning did not occur from the community. Frontier did that with the way they developed the game, and by not telling their backers that they were developing a different one to what people thought they'd backed.

 

[SCi-Fi]

I read this articles on the BBC News website & Eurogamer. The replies that frontier have given really annoyed me.

EuroGamer wrote Brabens words were "He said Frontier had not taken the decision "lightly" and added: "Having to hamper the game to work offline would have meant that we couldn't deliver the game we're making."
BBC News wrote Mr Brookes saying "He said Frontier had not taken the decision "lightly" and added: "Having to hamper the game to work offline would have meant that we couldn't deliver the game we're making."

When reading both comments, they knew from the "beginning" that there wasn't gonna be an offline mode and all they have done is lie through their teeth about it which I dearly wanted and needed.

 

[mbpoblet]

another reason I think online is mandatory for:

Progression of Civilization.

I do think there will be more and more stations / civilization progressing into unexplored areas. this will not be artificial btu I think controlled and watched by the devs with monthly or so updates. therefore to have a living growing universe online is mandatory. then maybe some events. and all that stuff. I dont think you can write AI that make up those things and work perfect in Offline mode.

I also think they generated the 400 bn galaxy - but no one really chekced it? the algorithm might have some strange errors or side products. therefore they need to also control that aspect too.

Civilization expansion could be procedurally generated, though (and it would make more sense).

It's just not Frontier's "VISION™", so [redact] us.

 

[amigacooke]

If the Elite: Dangerous well is being poisoned, then FD are the guilty party. If you spend a KickStarter telling people how important they are and how grateful you are, then perhaps you might expect an adverse reaction when your action suggest that you were not being entirely truthful.

It's not only E: D that's suffering here, but the idea of crowd funding for large scale video game projects.

 

[aluinie]

Well for me this is going to be my last post here.
As one of the original kickstarter backers who wanted offline singleplayer after having had to deal with the likes of diablo 3 online singleplayer and not wanting to go through that again it was a bitter blow when this was scrapped here. I did request a refund and this was turned down and now i just do not want to even look at the game now and feel let down by this all.
It saddens me as well what has happened with the community that it feels divided which is something i wished not to see.

For all that will be playing i hope you have a great time playing it.

 

[Papa Smurf]

I read this articles on the BBC News website & Eurogamer. The replies that frontier have given really annoyed me.

EuroGamer wrote Brabens words were "He said Frontier had not taken the decision "lightly" and added: "Having to hamper the game to work offline would have meant that we couldn't deliver the game we're making."
BBC News wrote Mr Brookes saying "He said Frontier had not taken the decision "lightly" and added: "Having to hamper the game to work offline would have meant that we couldn't deliver the game we're making."

When reading both comments, they knew from the "beginning" that there wasn't gonna be an offline mode and all they have done is lie through their teeth about it which I dearly wanted and needed.

They can't have it both ways. Either stick to your campaign promises (which are what compelled people to fund the project), or offer refunds to those who ask for it when you bail on those promises.

"I am sorry that people are so upset about it, but it was the right decision." Ahem. The right decision would have been to have been upfront about the offmode & that software they are providing is not DRM.

 

[Skizomeuh]

Stop overreacting ... I'd have thought people would have calmed down a bit by now

edit: sadly I forgot - this is the internet

Yep, it's disturbing how quick some are to name FDEV "evil crooks that must answer for the disgrace committed" and to throw all that's been done by the devs to the bin, because that's what they're doing when they quote "If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers." from the KS T&C as proof.

I still wonder how they managed to get into the crowfunding train to begin with. 2014 showed me something: gamers can be more damageable than publishers. Talk about respect :/

 

[Juniper]

By not telling them soon enough that they were struggling with that side of the implementation, maybe?

Tar didn't write what you quoted - I did, but yes, earlier full disclosure would certainly have helped.

What I'm saying here though is that this mess is entirely Frontier's own making. Don't blame the backers for trying to ensure that as many people know about it as possible, especially when all other avenues of complaint are closed to them.

If the media are picking up on this thread and throwing Frontier in a bad light as a result of it - then GOOD. At least others might not be so inclined to give Frontier their money, or any other KS funded project, when they know that even in a seemingly well-run & friendly project such as this with an engaged and enthusiastic community, these things can and do happen.

This will ultimately go down as a warning from history - and Frontier's name will be at the top of it. Good job, FD. *slow handclap*

 

[WeirdWizard]

I still don't think Frontier gets it...

Or maybe they do. I want to think that yesterdays little q&a was a sincere attempt at and apology (of sorts), but coming as it did right around the time people started getting their refund requests refused (which is an outrage) it looks like a cynical attempt at deflecting some of the attention away. My opinion of Frontier Developments and Mr Braben is diminishing rapidly. Which in itself is very sad.

 

[Adm Lazarus]

I'm not too bothered by it but as long as their servers can handle it. I have doubts about that. These games tend to be better multiplayer regardless in the end.

 

[Genophix]

I just wanted to post a message here, not only for the players/backers but also for David and his team.

I understand that when a people back a game and then a feature listed is changed it's disappointing. If this change is done out of greed or selfish reasons then we all would have good grounds to complain. However I believe that FD have more than earned our trust and by earning that trust it should be reflected now.

I am genuinely embarrassed by some of the players on these forums and deeply saddened by how a change in a computer game can lead to such hateful and nasty comments. People talking about legal action, people talking about getting refunds, not playing the game and facing off via the forums like their life depended on it. Have you really got nothing else better to do?

I'm not David but after seeing what can come back at you for trying to make a game you love, I'd fully support him to just can the whole project. I'm seeing this kind of thing more and more, where a great community can be totally undermined by a few unpleasant individuals.

So here's a heads up, as a backer you do not own the game. You give money to the project knowing that you will never see that money again and trust the developer to make good on this project. Asking for a refund isn't a option and you also should know that money isn't sitting in a jam jar in the office, it's being poured into making this incredible and ambitious game, it can't just be handed back out.

Second, this change does rule out mod support for now but this was never an officially backed option anyway, this is just something you have assumed will be possible. The reasons for this change are solid, with single player games running all over the place, when these reconnect to the online universe it will cause problems. I'm not a tech or programmer and if I can understand that I'm sure others can.

The actual difference this makes to the game is minuscule, if you want to play with no players around you still can. Those saying this is like the DRM Ubisoft used, are you serious? This is nothing like it. Ubisoft and EA use DRM to force players to into their ecosystem (money) but FD are doing this for the pure and simple reason to make the gaming experience better, that's it.

I trust David and his team because you know what? They earned it. This will be an incredible game and I hope it's not marre but the entitled drama queens running up and down these forums like were at war.

 

[MikeGreg]

lol no, that has been the policy from the start. The return policy has not changed. It has always been that if you downloaded the game you could not get a refund. Just do a forum search this is not a new thing.

Hi

at the moment noone has downloaded the game because at the moment they dont have one
they have repetely stated is is a small subset of the game for testing purposes, and has changed in content usability during the alpha/beta release

 

[nexxo]

I think that people are reading into all this what they want to read.
- Frontier did not lie, or set out to lie. They overpromised --whether out of enthusiasm or naivety.
- I suspect that they did not realise that it would be such a big thing for people to cancel offline mode. They were not prepared for the backlash, nor the refund requests.
- Frontier is full of geeks. They may not be brilliant communicators when it comes to dealing with people's feelings (then again, are the forum members here?). Think Big Bang Theory,
- Remember how people have been complaining how the current galaxy feels empty, boring, repetitive, lifeless? That would be the offline mode galaxy. That is why it was canned; Frontier assumed that it simply would not be well-received by players. Possibly wrongly, but based on player feedback in these forums.
- It takes less internet bandwidth to play solo online than it takes to read and post on this forum.
- In his Q&A Braden stated that player mods was an interesting idea that he wished to consider, as long as it didn't cause the game to branch.

 

[kmw]

....

However, if Frontier are refusing refunds to backers as it seems like they are doing, then whilst Frontier may be legally within their rights to do as they please, it's not a very nice thing to do.

Faced with that kind of rebuttal and desertion, then what else are people to do? Simply: warn others. Make sure that people know that when they're buying the game - precisely who they are giving their money to.

It's worth remembering that the poisoning did not occur from the community. Frontier did that with the way they developed the game, and by not telling their backers that they were developing a different one to what people thought they'd backed.

'You reap what you sow', as the saying goes.
.
IMO, in terms of community involvement & delivering on promises, FD have been a model of a developer before this decision was announced. But the way they are now (not?) responding is rapidly undoing the faith and goodwill that they had worked so well to achieve.
.
The response by FD on this forum & from the store, to all the dissatisfied customers, shows a lack of real care for those customers, and using the terms and conditions of kickstarter to hide from such a glaring let down of those customers is very sad behaviour.
.
I DID pledge on the basis of a true offline mode, but it did not stop me beta-testing in the meantime. My reasons for wanting offline and the state of my internet connection are no business of anyone else's, not even FD. It was simply what I wanted and what I was told I would get.
.
Like many others here, I will still look forward to playing the online version, and I genuinely still hope to enjoy this mode of the game. But that does not make it all right, and I still seriously believe that FD should sit down and discuss ways to implement an offline version or mode.

 

[mbpoblet]

Holy cow! I didn't even know this thread existed until I read about it on the BBC News Website!!!

I seriously do not understand what people are complaining about.

You need an internet connection to be connected to the persistent world that Frontier are making. You need an internet connection to log into the client in the first instance, you needed an internet connection to download the game in the first place.

This isn't the 1980's anymore, this is 2014, the vast majority of games now require online connectivity - and I don't foresee this being a problem for everyone posting here because you need an internet connection!

What value would an offline version even bring? None whatsoever other than being able to play when your internet connection is down.

I'll quote the replies to Braben's same question:

Have you played the game? Why is the offline (as opposed to single player, which I understand) mode so important to you?

For many of us, we pledged a large amount of money because we believed we'd still be able to play the game if FD went under. I personally would not have pledged to that level without such an assurance. Also, the premium box set reward is now worthless to me on those terms. In short, I haven't received the game I pledged for.

I'll continue to support the game, I'll definitely be playing it, but I do feel that it's important that you understand why some of us are unhappy with the situation.

If I may say this for myself:

Now, I know MMOs are popular, fancy and lucrative these days, but don't you think that you are pushing it just too far with your MMO only (tunnel) vision?
I am not an online multiplayer game player, never have been and never will be.

Sometimes i need to check the baby, answer the phone or door or do some work. And now I can not even pause or save the game and continue the battle in progress later. I want an immersive experience and that doesn't include other gamers.

I also want to play the game where I don't have an internet connection, and when the FD servers are down (or have been shutdown, or FD no longer exists). I don't want to rent my game, I want to buy it, no forced authentication, no DRM, no server connection. Reason ??
Except from constant bullying and incomodating your customers?!
Simply for long term assurance the player will be able to play the game long into the future regardless of what happens to FD, without wishing to sound horrible but if the company folds one day (as many games studios sadly do over time) the game can still be played for many years to come, and maybe even be modified and supported by the community if the developer is no longer in a position to do it themselves, there is many such games still being played today with this exact scenario where the original developer & publisher have long
gone but the game still lives on supported by a dedicated community, having a game which is solely dependant on the survival of either makes me very nervous, history proves this sadly. Not to mention server overloads, connection failures, high ping or simply lack of internet access while we are on the trip or somewhere where internet is not available.

So that is why offline mod is important for many players

For me personally it's not about the multiplayer - but about SAVE GAMES.

Roguelike / 1-shot play is fine for some games, but not long term rpg sims. Imagine spending weeks building up something and then crashing during docking or a glitch / drop in connection / PC crash and losing everything? No save game to go back on...

Also, if the game is so vast and to be played over many years...what happens when your servers go down? remember Gamespy?

I'm sorry to jump in on this, but I hope I can throw a few answers in:

- Offline allows me to have a self-contained galaxy that is "just mine" - sounds selfish, but this is why I love games like Skyrim, Frontier: Elite 2 etc.
- Offline worlds mean I can leave the game world, and not play for a week or a month and come back knowing everything is as I left it.
- Offline worlds (from an emotional level) feel more 'vast' to me personally, because I know everything out there is untouched.
- An offline game is 'mine' forever, and I know I will still be able to play in it 30 years from now (just as I can with the original Elite).

All of the above are very important to me, and are why games like Skyrim and Frontier: Elite 2 are at the top of my favourite games of all time.

I'm going to let this guy answer it because he put it better than I ever could. But it's true, real, and touching.

Been told to post this here, fyi I'm not angry only regrets, but I'd like this post added to this big heap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I want to play a game I own and have a right to play but through no fault of my own I sometimes can't?
Do I want to play a game with some corporate monstrosity looking over my shoulder watching my every move?
Do I want to play a game where I can be bullied or ripped off by some quick fingered 12 year old (either directly or indirectly)?
Do I want to play a game where arbitrary rules and conditions are injected into my world that will dictate my freedom to chose what I do and when I want to do it?

I am surprised just how strongly I feel about it, but as an 84er it can't be some sudden snap reaction.

Like many I've also thought long and hard about why I regret the sudden loss of Elite D offline and my reasons actually feel strangely deep and personal, almost spiritual you could say .

Call me mad (yes I'm mad) because I'm not even sure if my regrets are entirely rational:
~
I have regrets because I still think I look cool dancing to Spandau Ballet, but I secretly know I don't.
I have regrets because I still think it's great to have big hair, but when I'm honest, I know it's not.
I have regrets because I still find Blondie absolutely stunning but some now say she isn't.
I have regrets because I still believe I have no responsibilities, but the wife says I do.
I have regrets because I still think I'm young, but my kids keep saying I'm not.

I have regrets because I still hoped that I could be that geeky, sleep deprived teenager playing space games on my own late into the night in my own universe surrounded by a reality that only I commanded, no rules, that felt free from an awful, commercialised, bullying world, that was fresh and that as a young frustrated adult was the only true space in my life that was truly mine (all mine!) and the only place that at this point (or that point) in my life I could affect or influence in any meaningful way, it was my escape, it was selfish but it was mine and I was the only one watching and the only damn one in it.

So now 30 years later, I'd hoped, as an old(ish) man, when the discos over and younger one's gone, even after the lights and servers finally dim, that at least I'd be there sat, left all alone playing in the dark but as happy as Larry in my own bit of space, that I'd thought was all mine.

And now after this week I think that this my last little personal fantasy has gone too.

An offline mode insures that, no matter what happens to Frontier or the servers, the game will still be playable.

It also allows for the game (in its offline version) to be modded. This enriches the community and the game with content beyond even that which the developers themselves can produce (just look at Betheda's games), and ensures a long life for the game.

Look at Freelancer for an example of a similar game whose servers closed years ago, but which is still kicking and keeping a loyal community thanks to private servers and modding.

An offline game also lets it be DRM free (no matter the intent always-online is, by its own nature, a form of DRM, and even if it's not perceived as such by the developers, it is by a lot of potential customers).

An offline game would probably allow you to pause, thus allowing people who sometimes need to take care of children or other urgent issues to play without risking a loss of progress.

An offline game means, thus, more sales for Frontier (both from people who don't support online-only games, people who don't support DRM, and people who simply don't have a constant or reliable connection), and a much longer life for the game.

While I can't answer for the other guy, I can answer for myself and why I personally asked for a refund of my £105 pledge once you told us you ditched offline.

I have plenty of online games already in my library. I used to be a hardcore raider in WoW and frankly got disillusioned with the attitude and inherent behavioural patterns that emerge in people when they see things as an 'online race' or 'online competition'. I want to be able to just relax when I play my games, and the ability to actively pause and do something else (like painting some of my miniatures, or pet my cat that suddenly wants attention) shouldn't impact on my ability to enjoy a game. It does impact in the 'need to be online' games, especially when you can't pause them (which is kinda natural for online only games).
Add that the game feels incredibly punishing with no way of 'starting over from an old save', and your product is just plain un-fun to me if it needs to be online.

Also, I have several games in my collection from years gone by that required connecting to servers to work, and these games simply don't work anymore because the company(ies) behind them either ceased to exist or decided that it was simply not profitable anymore to carry the luggage that those games were. A noteworthy 'poster child' in this kind of thing is "Hellgate London" which I bought at release. The guys behind that particular game were noteworthy and had decent experience while they created a nice game. Their desire to keep a persistent online component running all the time eventually meant that they couldn't cover running costs, though, and the company went bust. Even so, I am still able to play that game in its offline mode if I want to (and it's actually a nice game in that mode), but if they had forced the consumers to only be able to play online, that too would have been a 'dead' game for all intents. The offline mode keeps it alive for me to be able to play.

So basicly my reasonings are twofold.

I want the ability to play at my own pace, with saves and reloads, without being forced into some ratrace that playing with others will naturally put me into (I seem tor ecall you even said yourself that resources would dwindle in areas in the online version as players took them)

and I want to be sure that I can always pick up the game and play it again later on, when everyone else forgot about it, because >I want to play at that time< (and not when some guy running your servers think it is opportune).

A purely online version is just inaccetbale to me, especially as the originals were offline.

These are my feelings about offline mode, too.

There are three things about offline mode being important:
1. making the game moddable. Not every modder wants to cheat. Some want simply to enjoy the game in another way than intended.
2. being independent of server issues and even network availability. I have a rig powerful enough for gaming at my workplace and enough time at hand sometimes, yet I couldn't run anything over network. If there was network traffic from games I might be in trouble, so I unplug the cable.
3. it's an emotional thing. If I buy something I don't think about renting a license or such, I want to own the game! I love my shelf with old game boxes. In the recent light of content removals from, e.g. GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas: those games on my shelf still have the music, those on Steam have not.

I might possibly have missed some, but this should give you a good idea.

 

[-c-s-]

I still wonder how they managed to get into the crowfunding train to begin with. 2014 showed me something: gamers can be more damageable than publishers. Talk about respect :/

You do realize don't you, that there would not be an Elite : Dangerous at all if all those Kickstarter backers hadn't made it happen? You might not know this, but the project almost didn't make it. It was the official adding of support for offline play to the FAQ that was a primary contributor to the project reaching the funding goal.

It is more than just backhanded to deny KS backers refunds that supported the project explicitly for this feature while granting recent purchasers refunds -- it is betrayal. Betrayal of not just the backers' good faith but also of the entire crowdfunding ecosystem.

These are significant ethical shortcomings that many here are trying to whitewash away.

 

[kmw]

It takes less internet bandwidth to play solo online than it takes to read and post on this forum.

Hey nexxo, that's an interesting statement - if you could tell me where that is confirmed, I would at least feel a bit better about this offline issue, thanks.

 

[Skizomeuh]

This will ultimately go down as a warning from history

Exactly. "He who was abused by publishers shouldn't rely his hopes on public benevolence either, and may along the rocky path of independence regret the good old times of publisher diktat"