No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Michael Brookes]

As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter. One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions. This isn't something we can translate into an offline experience as we'd effectively have to make a new game world - we couldn't share the same world and that throws out the intent for a shared universe.

Michael

 

[Zephyriel]

They sold many copies on the basis that there would be an offline mode. Removing it now is unacceptable. I understand they'd encourage people to play online so they could benefit from the dynamic galaxy, but people without an internet connection (or a with bad one) have bought the game and should be allowed to play it.

Besides, when the day comes that the servers are shut down, no offline mode means no one will ever get to play this game again.

Marketing wise, FD are going to get a lot of refund requests. Hopefully this will get them to reconsider this decision. Missing some features is alright, but offline mode isn't a "feature", for some people (and looking far into the future) it's the whole game. Writing it off completely is borderline swindling considering they got some funding money from people who can't play online and wouldn't have paid if an offline mode hadn't been promised.

Please people, voice your concerns here to keep this thread on top to make sure that FD take notice.


EDIT after Michael Brookes' post > The fact that the offline galaxy would diverge from the online one was known from the start, I don't understand how saying this now makes it alright to remove offline play. Most players will play online in this "shared universe", but some are not able to, and some others just don't care about it.

 

[Doolittle]

That was what I read also:

"Galaxy, story, missions, have to match, and it does mean the single player has to connect to the server from time to time, but this has the added advantage that everyone can participate in the activities that can happen in the galaxy. A fully offline experience would be unacceptably limited and static compared to the dynamic, ever unfolding experience we are delivering."

Then tell me how they were able to deliver much more on a 30 year old computer? Graphics aside.

---

This is exactly what I was afraid of.... Snake Oil salesmen..... FD is apparently no different. The lured, took our money based on bogus features waited to the end to tell us they are not going to deliver. Typical. Looks to be another glorified console port.

 

[littleminxundr]

In the sense that a number of us backed with a lot of money on the basis that the game would be playable if the servers were ever shut down, then yes. If we were talking about a game I'd picked up for £20, then no. The off-line mode was an incentive for many of us to pledge high.

I believe that Frontier Development now must offer refunds to those of us who bought into Elite on the prospect of off-line play. We can make a serious case of being lured into a venture on false pretence. If we can make an unification-thread where everybody who bought in with that prospect as the deciding factor makes themselves known, then we can make a unified case. Going at it alone will lead nowhere.

 

[fergal]

Even what they added after the start is still a clear promise of an totally offline game if I want to.

I don't disagree.
Personally I don't really care about an offline only mode. You wouldn't be able to switch you commander to online, and I don't think I would have more than one commander.

You guys seem to really care about it, why doesn't someone start a poll on it to more easily show support.

 

[Pibbles]

If offline is important to people who pre-ordered from the Store I advise the following:

Email FD Store and ask the outright question and give them a reasonalbe deadline to reply - say 3 working days
Screen shot the KS page, I have done this already, an unscrupulous company (Which FD are more and more appearing to be) may change this page
Raise a dispute immediately with your credit card company or other payment provider, don't wait for FD to get back to you, just raise it immediately to be sure you are covered

If you are outside the Dispute window then you need to raise it using the Consumer Credit law of your country, which will protect you by a charge back or similar mechanism.

In the EU FD are absolutely out of line on this one and do not have a hope of winning a request for a refund because live advertising - KS - is still published showing the game as offline available. In other areas it may be more complex to pursue but I think it could be done.

Bookmark the cache archive for the offline page in case FD switch it (they seem to like switching things): https://web.archive.org/web/2014111...arter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

If you are not bothered, then please don't respond with anything, I am just trying to help the people who I know are bothered.

If you are a KS backer like me, just tell FD to shove it, as I don't think we're well protected but I do recommend a mass complaint to KS because FD should have been communicating core changes such as this. They definitely need to feel some heat from this, their attitude stinks. I am thinking they've been bought out by EA they way they carry on!

 

[srinidhalaya]

Do we have to request a refund prior to launch?

 

[strangerdanger]

As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter. One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions. This isn't something we can translate into an offline experience as we'd effectively have to make a new game world - we couldn't share the same world and that throws out the intent for a shared universe.

Michael

That's all good and well, but I believe the point was made that the game as sold (after Kickstarter) promised offline mode as a feature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are a few people here who can argue this much better than me anyway.

 

[Rinxo]

As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter. One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions. This isn't something we can translate into an offline experience as we'd effectively have to make a new game world - we couldn't share the same world and that throws out the intent for a shared universe.

Michael

+1 This is a step forward in my books

 

[Havner]

As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter. One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions. This isn't something we can translate into an offline experience as we'd effectively have to make a new game world - we couldn't share the same world and that throws out the intent for a shared universe.

Michael

So KS promise is not delivered.
Also this means that modding is out of the question. Second promise goes to the trash.

Nice...

 

[Pibbles]

Do we have to request a refund prior to launch?

If you are not happy just do it now.

The longer you stay with the game the more FD can build a case you did not act upon information given and therefore implies you are happy.

There may be technical detail underneath about store content and your rights but the faster you do it the better.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I'm beginning to seriously doubt that I read the same newsletter as some of the contributors to this thread. What I took from it was that from time to time you can log onto the game to update your galaxy so that it comes into line with what is going on in the dynamic galaxy. Sounds like a plus to me designed to stop the offline game becoming stale. 'Time to time' being once a week or once a month or whenever you can get access.

 

[Kayweg]

No off-line singleplayer... well that sucks. Makes you wonder if Frontier has noticed the constant backlash that always on-line games catch? They better have the servers to handle it, because I expect devs who force always online to have pretty stable servers that allow me to play my game whenever I want to.
Yes.
Color me crazy, but I feel that Frontier has now taken it upon themselves to make sure that the servers are online and accessible all of the time, everytime. Without fail.

Nothing crazy about that at all, i for one share your view.
Rest assured the game EULA will cover them on all eventualities, just as any other online-game EULA does.
From what i've experienced up til now, i am less than convinced that their networking structure/servers are fit for the job.
And with dec. 16th approaching, i am worried about hearing yet another "We didn't anticipate the amount of new player influx"-excuse.
I've seen too many online-games publishers cutting that particular cost corner at launch, to then slowly (god forbid any overcapacity is created) adjust to real numbers.
An offline mode would have alleviated that pressure, because people would be able to play at least.
No need to doomsay of course, but once again in a game launch i anticipate, the writing is on the wall......could have done without that

 

[SentineI]

I pledged for a game I'd be able to play if FD ever went bust. Now I'm not getting that game. This was a major factor when I decided to become a backer.

It wasn't a *major* factor for me (I use Steam after all)... but I still find it greatly worrying that playing it off-line will be impossible. What happens when Elite Dangerous stops making enough money for FD to pay for their servers? I'm still able to play Elite 2 & 3 from 20 years ago, but it seems Elite 4 will be unplayable at some point in the future :-(

I don't see any technological reason for removing off-line play, but rather it's just going to require more (on-going) work than they originally expected. And the easy solution (a private server) would probably be open to abuse from cheaters looking to better understand how to trick the real server.

 

[Pibbles]

I'm beginning to seriously doubt that I read the same newsletter as some of the contributors to this thread. What I took from it was that from time to time you can log onto the game to update your galaxy so that it comes into line with what is going on in the dynamic galaxy. Sounds like a plus to me designed to stop the offline game becoming stale. 'Time to time' being once a week or once a month or whenever you can get access.

The point is it's not what was offered and therefore people may want to bail. In principle more than anything, a company doing a bait and switch is one that most people will not want to deal with so they will seek an exit. They have one right here but I think they need to move quickly.

If you are happy, that's great, but for those that are not, they need to act.

 

[Darkflame]

Things from ks missing;

1. No true offline mode
2. No co-op multiplayer (", take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances" )
3. No salvaging. ("you never know what you might find; perhaps a salvageable freighter wreck or some valuable asteroids? There are secrets and startling beauty waiting")
4. ?

2 and 3 may still be revealed, but 1 seems a broken promise.

Technically I would have backed this anyway, but its never good when theres a bait and switch on what people our buying. Sure, we all have internet connections, but the point is to have access to what we paid for always and without question. If FD burns down. If a solar storm whipes out the Internet. If the last of humanity is in a bunker somewhere - we should still be able to play the game.

Now just to be clear;
Game development IS hard, theres unexpected problems, and producing a polished result with a few less features is better then one with lots thats a mess. Also, the KS funds were small for a game of this scope - and FD needs to stay in business to keep 200+ people employed. Things happen. I am not going to remotely blame Frontier for not 100% meeting promises.
I just wish there was more a apology and less a positive spin.
Less "Look at these fantastic ships!!! (and btw, less features, more bug fixs, no offline)"
And more "Sorry we cant quite meet all our promises yet, we have been able to boast the number of ships instead and we hope you have patience..."
etc.

Rest assured the game EULA will cover them on all eventualities, just as any other online-game EULA does.

Actually, the legal status of EULAs in general is pretty questionable - especially for games where you dont see the EULA till after you buy it.

 

[Windsaw]

As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter.

Change is good, as long it is within the boundaries of promised features for which we paid you money.

One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions.

The promesed features have to have priority over everything else.

 

[Doolittle]

As mentioned in the newsletter thread the game has changed a lot since the initial kickstarter. One of the biggest changes is the importance of the the offline component to manage the galaxy and interactions. This isn't something we can translate into an offline experience as we'd effectively have to make a new game world - we couldn't share the same world and that throws out the intent for a shared universe.

Michael

Since this decision according to you was made some time ago, but only now allowed to filter to the masses....... What was the purpose for that? Some more snake oil. Are any of you guys running for a public office, I'd like to know so I can avoid voting for you.

Still should be a fun game anyway. Just not as advertised.

 

[Zephyriel]

Joe Spivey > What you're talking about, and is referred to in the newsletter, is simply the single player online we currently have. Meaning an internet connection, even if it's not permanent, is mandatory. And also meaning that if and when the servers are offline, no one will be able to play.

 

[Pibbles]

Nothing crazy about that at all, i for one share your view.
Rest assured the game EULA will cover them on all eventualities, just as any other online-game EULA does.

In the EU the EULA can be thrown away. It's not applicable in nearly all cases, the law over-rides all and since June 13th it is VERY clear in this sort of scenario. The buyer is entitled to a refund even if the game has been played. Digital content is undoubtedly now treated the same as all other goods in the EU, they have to be as described. End of story, no EULA can sign that away, even if you sign a piece of paper in blood.