No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

mbpoblet

mbpoblet
Seonid said:
Think dynamic galaxy and extrapolate from there.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I did...

My conclusions, by the way...

  1. Player influence on the galaxy makes no sense given the numbers involved and simple math.
  2. A dynamic, evolving galaxy that isn't influenced by players can easily be produced through procedural generation on a regular PC.
  3. A dynamic, evolving galaxy that is influenced by a single player and by important Frontier updates can easily be produced through procedural generation on a regular PC.
  4. A dynamic, evolving galaxy that is influenced by hundreds of thousands of players and by important Frontier updates probably can not, and will need servers, but doesn't need the code to be substantially different from the single player version; it doesn't need to be a "different game" as Brookes claims.
  5. The galaxies on points 3 and 4 will be virtually indistinguishable from the galaxy on point 2 (except for Frontier's updates, and those could easily be implemented as overrides), so why the heck even bother!?.
  6. Given the previous points, Frontier's excuses for not providing an offline single player mode make no sense whatsoever, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:

CMDR Sheehy

CMDR Sheehy
Gazz said:
This question has been asked a few times (it's an obvious one after all =) but it's one that FD doesn't want to answer.
Which leads me to assume: not very high.
Click to expand...

Your powers of deduction are quite astounding, Holmes.

Considering it's a work in progress, the requirements, like the client, probably change. Besides which, seeing the server is not currently up for grabs as this moment in time, can you give a single reason why they *should* tell you what the current requirements are?
 

Gazz

Gazz
Zuikaku said:
If you turn the logic on, servers with one client needs moonly fraction of processing power required by servers with tens of thousands of clients. So there is a high possibility we were not told truth.
Click to expand...
Just for comparison:
X3 simulates hundreds of sectors with thousands of ships and stations.
They fight trade, go on their merry way...

This is ancient technology. 32 bit game and a patched and patched again engine with parts dating back some 15 years!

I call humbug.
 

Zenarthro

Z
https://store.elitedangerous.com/ed-eula/

"5. Online/multiplayer Features and Functionality
This Game may allow services operated by Frontier and/or its affiliates or third parties authorised on their behalf to be accessed which allow users of the Game to enjoy certain on-line or multiplayer features and functionality associated with the Game (“Online Features”). These services and Online Features may, however, require payment of additional fees. In addition, access to and use of such services/Online Features and other goods or information made available as part of such services may be subject to completion of a registration process and acceptance of additional terms and conditions including, but not limited to, privacy policies governing the use and processing of personally identifiable information. Importantly, not all purchasers of this Game will be able to register or benefit from such services (including Online Features associated with the Game). These services and Online Features may not be available in your country, are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time (and may be subject to suspension or withdrawal at any time) and may, for example, be subject to age restrictions. An internet connection will be required to access Online Features. You are responsible for all internet and other connection charges associated with your access to and use of any Online Features."

The EULA agreement does not state that we never had "Offlline mode", it does state to access to "Online Features".

I think this has something to do with "Dynamic In-Game Advertising" they introduced a couple of months ago, since it does require you to be online for it to be able to update as per the EULA agreement.

"The Game may incorporate technology (which may be provided by Frontier or third party service providers engaged by Frontier (each a "Dynamic Advertising Provider")) which enables advertising to be uploaded into the Game on your PC, and changed while the Game is being played on-line. In order that the Dynamic Advertising Provider is able to direct advertising appropriate to your Game and geographic region, as well as to the correct location within the computer game, certain non-personally identifiable data and information may be retrieved and retained by the Dynamic Advertising Provider including your I.P. address, geographic location, in-game position, and information concerning the appearance of advertising visible during your gameplay (for example, the length of time an item of advertising was visible, the dimensions of the advertisements). In addition, the Dynamic Advertising Provider may assign a unique identification number which is stored on your PC and which is used to monitor and calculate the number of views of dynamic advertising during gameplay. None of the information collected for this purpose including the identification number can be used to identify you. "


Can be wrong though.
 

EbolaConundrum

E
I have to say my rather unfortunate experience on single player being forced online was Diablo3. First few weeks it was virtually unplayable you couldn’t login most the time got unexpectedly dropped, etc.

Then you realised the game itself was just an adjunct to the auction house which was Blizzards main way of making a good steady income of the players post release. The whole game was designed around pushing you into the auction house the whole economy was designed around making useful equipment incredibly hard to find through game play so you’d pay online for it and they’d get a cut.

In short it ruined the game, I’ve been back a couple of times and they did eventually kill the auction house having made a packet and rebalance the game to actually be fun and allow you to find useful equipment through play more than once a month.

My question is this given that Frontier have the same model on online only how will they pay to keep the servers up and profit from the game long term, I know currently they are looking at micro-transactions similar to those seen on Android and Apple, although they have said it will not be as pay to play as some of those games.

Keeping large server farms going isn’t cheap even using Amazon cloud; So if they fail to make enough income from micro-transactions to keep things going they have two choices; shutdown the servers or charge a subscription.

I wonder how many people defending online only would complain if told you guys aren’t buying enough paint jobs from us, either start paying a subscription or we have to close down. It’s a very real possibility I’m sure I and many others annoyed by this decision will not be buying anything else from them.
 

Mecha

M
EbolaConundrum said:
You obviously don't see what I'm on about at all no. What I'm actually talking about is that it is entirely possible to have client server architecture and to run the client and server on the same machine be that machine virtual or physical is irrelevant to that point.

It’s a nice shortcut to create a VM Image and install that but then you are dependent on a third part to setup a server out of the goodness of their heart after Frontier fold the game.

You must have packaged your server side for initial deployment and installed it on a VMWare image before you can actually take the image with the software deployed for creating additional servers on demand anyway.
Click to expand...

Huh?

I think you have it back to front. Right now to run off an image all you need to do is download a free copy of VirtualBox, and off you go, both the client and server running on the same machine - the server running in a VM. Who would want to install a load of Enterprise services on their gaming PC?

In 30 years unless it is an image, you won't be running it - as I wrote before, though a client is standalone, the server will probably have a huge amount of dependences. For example what db do they use? In 30 years are you going to locate a 2014 version of PostgreSQL and install it locally? No, you would use a VM and run it off an image with everything preinstalled.

It's not such a weird idea, people do it right now with MMO server emulators, you can either install java and spend an age on setup, or just run off a local VM image with everything already set up.
 

mbpoblet

mbpoblet
Zenarthro said:
https://store.elitedangerous.com/ed-eula/

"5. Online/multiplayer Features and Functionality
This Game may allow services operated by Frontier and/or its affiliates or third parties authorised on their behalf to be accessed which allow users of the Game to enjoy certain on-line or multiplayer features and functionality associated with the Game (“Online Features”). These services and Online Features may, however, require payment of additional fees. In addition, access to and use of such services/Online Features and other goods or information made available as part of such services may be subject to completion of a registration process and acceptance of additional terms and conditions including, but not limited to, privacy policies governing the use and processing of personally identifiable information. Importantly, not all purchasers of this Game will be able to register or benefit from such services (including Online Features associated with the Game). These services and Online Features may not be available in your country, are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time (and may be subject to suspension or withdrawal at any time) and may, for example, be subject to age restrictions. An internet connection will be required to access Online Features. You are responsible for all internet and other connection charges associated with your access to and use of any Online Features."

The EULA agreement does not state that we never had "Offlline mode", it does state to access to "Online Features".

I think this has something to do with "Dynamic In-Game Advertising" they introduced a couple of months ago, since it does require you to be online for it to be able to update as per the EULA agreement.

"The Game may incorporate technology (which may be provided by Frontier or third party service providers engaged by Frontier (each a "Dynamic Advertising Provider")) which enables advertising to be uploaded into the Game on your PC, and changed while the Game is being played on-line. In order that the Dynamic Advertising Provider is able to direct advertising appropriate to your Game and geographic region, as well as to the correct location within the computer game, certain non-personally identifiable data and information may be retrieved and retained by the Dynamic Advertising Provider including your I.P. address, geographic location, in-game position, and information concerning the appearance of advertising visible during your gameplay (for example, the length of time an item of advertising was visible, the dimensions of the advertisements). In addition, the Dynamic Advertising Provider may assign a unique identification number which is stored on your PC and which is used to monitor and calculate the number of views of dynamic advertising during gameplay. None of the information collected for this purpose including the identification number can be used to identify you. "


Can be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Also from point 8 of the EULA (you left out the most interesting part): "This means that if you do not want to receive dynamic advertising, you should only play the game when you are not connected to the Internet."

Difficult to comply with that in an online only game, I'd say.
 

synchromesh

synchromesh
OFFICIAL KICKSTARTER RISKS AND CHALLENGES.....Taken from ED Kickstarter

Risks and challenges Learn about accountability on Kickstarter


Stating the obvious, all projects, whether building a bridge, making a film, studying for an exam or whatever, carry risk. Projects can run out of time or money, people can leave, assumptions that were made at the start may prove to be mistaken, or the results may simply not be as good as expected. Games development is no different.
Click to expand...
 

Papa Smurf

P
Uridium said:
I guess its down to your interpretation of DRM Free then. If you think you can play an online game without telling the server which character you are, then good luck.
Click to expand...

I wish people would just read the posts before posting... Once again;

Let me quote from the KS FAQ - Will I need to connect to a server to play?

" 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).
Last updated: Tue, Dec 11 2012 1:56 AM PST "

and

Good quote I have nabbed from the forums:

For those that claim the KS stated DRM free..here's the direct quote dated Dec. 10. 2012:

"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.
Last updated: Mon, Dec 10 2012 6:54 AM EST"

So yes... you 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.

Bail early if you have to, so you shed the people for whom the game you're now making isn't the game they want to fund/play. But you don't get to rattle off a list of stuff, each of which motivates different people to different degrees to decide to fund you, and then just ditch parts of that list at the end.

And I get that development can't be 100% predicted. That's why I'm saying they have to be proactive about these decisions AND allow for KS refunds when requested.

You either allow for refunds, or you make damn sure you only promise things in your KS campaign that you're actually doing to deliver, so that those who fund your project can trust that they're not standing on a rug that's going to get yanked out from under them at the end.

And for those who say, "but this isn't a store, it's an investor platform". That's disingenuous. Investors get to influence, if not outright dictate, business decisions. At no point was I or any other KS backer (the 'investors') consulted about whether they should drop offline support or soften their DRM-free commitment.
 

Zenicetus

Zenicetus
littleminxundr said:
Absolutely agree with you and Tiger on this. It's murky territory though. Marshland with quicksand pools. Because where does moral responsibility end? If they refund over this, then the next time they must refund over something else. (And maybe relatively small like having planetary landing but no walking around.)
Blanket refunds at this stage in the process is just a stupid move.
Click to expand...

It's only a stupid move if they care more about their current bottom line, than they do about the company's reputation and future sales going forward.

Reputation matters in the gaming world. Without a subscription model, they need a reserve of goodwill to gen up interest in forthcoming expansions like walking around and planet landings. Everything they're doing now is jeopardizing the eventual media and public reaction to those projects. People aren't going to forget what's happening here. Regardless of the legal status of the T&C, it's just too easy for the media and other interested parties to spin this as "The Backers are getting screwed with no refunds, while anyone who didn't back the game at a higher price gets a refund."

FD could end this, right now, and get the train back on the tracks by giving refunds to those who want them. I understand the slippery slope argument, but right now the emphasis should be on damage control, to remove this thundercloud over the game's official release. Later on, they can work on improving communications with the user base to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

If they don't lighten up on the no-refunds sledgehammer, this negative perception of the game in the wider gaming community will not go away. It will roll right through December and the holiday sales period, which is exactly what they don't need, and what the community doesn't need.

Just my opinion.
 

DaveS1

D
Food for thought

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30111575

From link - Azure fault is causing major problems. Now I know MS are not as good as this sort of thing as Amazon, but AWS has failed in the past too.

Good luck playing online if online is actually offline so you can't get online to play your online only game until the SP resolves the fault and gets online back online.
 

Krait_79

Krait_79
Zenicetus said:
It's only a stupid move if they care more about their current bottom line, than they do about the company's reputation and future sales going forward.

Reputation matters in the gaming world. Without a subscription model, they need a reserve of goodwill to gen up interest in forthcoming expansions like walking around and planet landings. Everything they're doing now is jeopardizing the eventual media and public reaction to those projects. People aren't going to forget what's happening here. Regardless of the legal status of the T&C, it's just too easy for the media and other interested parties to spin this as "The Backers are getting screwed with no refunds, while anyone who didn't back the game at a higher price gets a refund."

FD could end this, right now, and get the train back on the tracks by giving refunds to those who want them. I understand the slippery slope argument, but right now the emphasis should be on damage control, to remove this thundercloud over the game's official release. Later on, they can work on improving communications with the user base to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

If they don't lighten up on the no-refunds sledgehammer, this negative perception of the game in the wider gaming community will not go away. It will roll right through December and the holiday sales period, which is exactly what they don't need, and what the community doesn't need.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Nobody is getting screwed. Disappointed yes screwed no. If you already have been playing then you are hardly being screwed because they removed offline which was never more than a plan in an FAQ anyway.

The hysteria this whole issue has whipped up is laughable given the circumstances!
 

Zenarthro

Z
synchromesh said:
OFFICIAL KICKSTARTER RISKS AND CHALLENGES.....Taken from ED Kickstarter
Click to expand...

That exists even without kickstarter, have you ever run a business before? A business contains risks assessments.

Using typical excuses like above, means that you rather have the problem ignored, rather than solved.

And does not work well with people like myself who see through this political nonsensical jargon.

Frontier changed policy, deal with that fact, and snuck it in a newsletter.
 

CMDR Sheehy

CMDR Sheehy
They have refunded people, just not to those who have had access to what they have paid for.

Conversely, if they handed out refunds to everyone who had a complaint with the product, well, figure out what that means with the words "Viable" and "Not." They have to actually survive and prosper. And then that only encourages the withdrawal, a bit like picking a hole in a dam.

I do not believe, and others believe differently, that there is no reason, other than this storm, to give refunds for products other than for items not yet fulfilled.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Zenarthro said:
Bend over - heads in sand approach yeah? like everything else these days? No wonder we are so easy to get screwed.

Why are people always in a thread they don't like?
Click to expand...

Because then there would be no conversation. Are you trying to bully out people with a different opinion to you?
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom