I am wondering about that,too.
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I am wondering about that,too.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From memory, pledge tiers could not be changed when there were pledgers in that tier.
I would guess both..........
From what I remember from the comments during the Kickstarter, Frontier said that you would only have to connect once (per machine) to verify your account in offline mode. After that, the game wouldn't talk to a central server at all. I CBA digging it up though, so you'll either have to find it buried within 120,000+ posts yourself or take my word on it, sorry.
As you say though, we'll never really know now.
And? I don't see the relevance?
Will the game be DRM-free?
Yes, the game code will not include DRM (Digital Rights Management), but there will be server authentication when you connect for multiplayer and/or updates and to synchronise with the server.
No requirement to do so specified. DRM free means... ummm... DRM free!
That makes no sense at all. It would HAVE to check each time to know it is the player.
Go ask for your money back then.
Well duh, asked, and it was denied. That is why I am whining now.
That really gets to the nub of it though.
Was offline part of the original plan, and the FAQ answer & comments on the Kickstarter to entice people to back simply oversight on FD's part when setting it all up?
Or was it added after the event in order to give the (languishing at the time) campaign a much needed shot in the arm?
Thanks for the response. Internet forums is the only PVP I get anymore and probably sometimes I get out of line.
Wow, I knew CD Projekt RED's games were DRM free, but I didn't even suspect they owned GOG!
Awesome, they already were my favorite company, but now... wow!
Now I'm somehow even more stoked for Cyberpunk 2077, if that's even possible!
Sorry for the off-topic, but... wow!
(EDIT: Damnit, I almost made 9000!)
Last edited:
Did you back at Kickstarter? At what level? Just interested...
Word. I had never ever felt so comfortable in a forum as I did in this one. Then, to use your words, we were thrown into a pit.
We were thrown in by a newsletter comment that said very little and then we all put our heads up a bit, asked 'what is this pit?' and Michael Brookes said, 'yeah, you guessed a'right. I am that merry wanderer of the night. I jest to Braben and make him smile... and we've planning no offline for a loooong while... Suck it up.'
And now, we're all at each other’s throats. Until the same broken promise situation occurs to those who are happy with online only. I think that's when y'all will get it.
You would be absolutely correct and I would absolutely agree if the Solo-online was Solo-online the strictest sense of the word. But there's nothing Solo in world where the parameters constantly change due to outside meddling. It makes the Solo-online moot. It's better to play in Open, at least you can work out the frustration by PVPing someone that way.
I've played WoW with great pleasure because of the fact that whatever people did, it didn't hurt me none. I always got my resources with little hassle and if hassle occured, guildchat was but a buttonpress away.
My take on Open is rather ambivalent; I win or I lose, either way I live to fight another day. It's ultimately pointless.
With Elite however, many factors can lead to ruining the economy in the game and leaving the game for a few days might mean that you might never even be able to catch up again, and since Open influences Solo, what's the point in either?
Either way I turn it, Solo does not free people from other people and it's a modus that should aswell not be there.
Ok, I get that people are disappointed and i get that those with terrible or no Internet connection are doubly so, but let's get one thing accurate here please. At no point on any of the Kickstarter information was a direct PROMISE made or broken.
An intent was made... but the core game and the focus of the kickstarter was very much focused on the Online component. Not arguing against those who no feel able to play and want a refund, separate issue for me, but there was no promise.
Where do i stand on always online? Well, my experiences with Sim City and D3 have left me with the correct expectations. Upon launch I suspect it will take a day or two for server traffic volumes to stabilise and become truly playable. Ideal? No. But I have plenty of things I can do in the mean time and then i will be able to play the game. So in essence it does not really affect me and rather the game as intended gets the full and deserved attention than squeeze out something that just plain won't work without fundamental change in prioritisation.
All those on Next Gen consoles or Steam already essentially have this requirement on most if not all of their products already and in this day and age it is becoming the absolute exception rather than in any shape or form a norm.
Doesn't mean it does not suck for those not able to log on, i wouldn't personally want anyone excluded, but clearly needs must in this instance.
For those perfectly capable of being online and still arguing about it, sorry but why?! Do you also walk out of a restaurant when they have run out of something from the menu or do you pick something else and as long as you like it and the restaurant come back another time? So sure, if a server issue affects us and we can't play, that sucks, it does, but frankly the flaming goes way above what is necessary.
When the PSNetwork went down for an hour or so the other week, did I scream refund? No, i went and did something else, knowing that the people who look after that kinda stuff are committed to getting everyone back up and running as soon as. I see no reasons here to suspect anything less from FD.
So, lucky me I guess, i don't feel impacted and I am very aware that not everyone is so fortunate and i hope they can get a refund if that is what they want.
Maybe a happy compromise would have been if they offered up all and any further implemented training missions as an offline feature for those who lose server connections or are in transit and still want to tinker. Just a thought.
why do you insult people who like to play online ? i understand that you find it a shame the offline is gone. and for the people who wanted the offline i understand there disappointment although i only play the game online. but it dos not mean that you have to insult people who like to play the game online the same as it is not ok to insult people ho want to play the game offline
Then you have 3 choices, try to enjoy the game, or do not play it, or post the same thing on this forum for the rest of your life. I mean i am sorry you cant play in offline, but are you going to post here for ever the same thing ?
True that, but now of course it's all irrelevant, everyone is online according to David, and everyone will be tied to their persistent, dynamic account. Because of THE VISIONᵀᴹ, tethered DRM and MMO T's and C's are the way of the future, because Reasons.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
And? I don't see the relevance?
Will the game be DRM-free?
Yes, the game code will not include DRM (Digital Rights Management), but there will be server authentication when you connect for multiplayer and/or updates and to synchronise with the server.
No requirement to do so specified. DRM free means... ummm... DRM free!
The text you quoted implies server authentication for updates and synchronisation with the server, regardless of whether the game is online or offline. The pledge tier text only refers to the "Physical DRM-free boxed set" as a different means of installing the game, not specifically playing it or authenticating it. It is not unambiguous whether the online account would never be required to play offline.
- Status