No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Juniper]

I'm sure when they pause to take a breath they will realize there is no way Frontier could release a game that doesn't at the very least log on and verify it's user's identity when they play.
no one want's this game to be pirated all over the net and a fully offline game would enable this in a heart beat.

Sorry, that's just nonsense - and in any event, is not the reason given why offline mode has been cancelled.

DRM through online authentication is not up for discussion here. By your argument, every game released should require an online account just to play. Do you work for EA?

Whatever happens, the game will be hacked & be all over the net within days of release anyway. That's hardly a reason to break trust with your backers / customers is it?

 

[Enride]

What we are dealing with here is an extreme sense of entitlement. People seem to think that because they paid for a fraction of the development cost of something (not the final product mind you) they are absolutely and 100% entitled to call the shots on the whole process. To think that is the case it is ridiculous at best.

Fronting some money to a company that has a "plan" on something as volatile as is a computer program is no riskier than participating in the stockmarket.
But but they said they would make me rich! yeah a lot of companies hope for that but reality then slaps them (and you) in the face and have to go to plan B which in this case was... well... offline won't really work with what we got going on so we'll table it.... definitely..? indefinitely? who knows, but again at no time did anyone EVER not get something for their money.
I paid a small bit during the kickstarter campaign.. that was my way of ensuring I got something for my efforts, once the deal was done and the game was on its way I stepped it up with multiple contributions through content etc. And for that I got the best 3 months of gaming potentially ever.. Even before I joined the beta I got to spend time on the forums and discuss ideas with others on a game that I care a lot about. To me that's real value but others don't really see it so and that's why for the last few weeks or so these forums have gotten to be a bastion of pessimism and now this.

I guess it's back to drinking my glass half full of Kool-Aid for me while I eagerly await 3.9, gamma and then release.

Really, you believe that?
You dont think people are angry because someing important to many was promised and now, one month from release, announced in a very disguised manner to have been scrapped.
And the reason given in the newsletter apperently lies, the real reasons coming to this thread after a while.

I think that might be the reason.

 

[EAGLE 5]

Well said... 100% agree.

Shields up.. have a feeling your going to get blasted.

That is quite alright.

 

[stimutacs]

OK, I've had enough of this. People who have no clue whatsoever of how the internet works, complain about the location of hosting (because geographical distance is, like, really important for an electronic network, much more than whether the server is perched right on top of the massive transatlantic trunk line, like, say, Ireland is), complain about their game needing to occasionally go online to exchange less data than it took to load up this webpage and post their complaint. Because they want to play this game on a train (which is a perfect spot for a dogfighting sim, sure).

Learn how computers work, then adjust your expectations.

I was going to ask whether 350ms rtt was acceptable latency, what with its ideal position the long way around the opposite side of the planet, but I just checked, and now I have to ask if 600ms is something you'd be happy with. Not forgetting the awesome leaps up to 3500ms whenever internet gods are angry.

I am sure that with more sneering, we can indeed beat the speed of light.

 

[mbabbs]

They can't provide a single player experience.

Ok I am fortunate as I have an internet connection so this doesn't bother me. For those who can't - it sucks.

But it is what it is. Get a refund if you can and our Commander wishes go with you.

 

[Ref Minor]

What if the offline player starts having technical difficulties - could be extremely difficult for FD support to help. Then those players would be right back here calling out FD, demanding a refund and their heads on a plate.

I would reinstall, it's worked for me for the last 30 years

 

[LucyFer]

Wow - the more I see of this unkind, arrogant, entitled attitude on here, the less interested I am in multi player.

I'm sorry. I did not mean it as unkind, arrogant nor entitled. You've clearly missed my earlier posts.

I was responding to the type of posts that were asking for David Braben to resign over this.

It may not suit your viewpoint but I have no problem with a game in 2014 expecting you to have an internet connection to play.

It is by no means a reason for some of the absurd 'threats' posted on this thread.

That view is commonsense to me, as valid as any and I'm entitled to say it.

 

[Rock-Hermit]

Erm, but this will happen with online too. Just look at the current crowd sourcing of commodities.
You think if you find the location of Thargoids in an online game that they won't exist for another player in exactly the same location?

They may have their reasons, but I doubt this being one of them.

The difference being the online game won't host the data files on your PC for people to hack or data mine. That stuff will be kept server side in online mode so the descovery of game content will occur through natural gameplay and not appear a week after release thanks to the info being hacked and revealed to all and sundry.

 

[Atinus]

I feel for Frontier's Dev team at the moment, why? because there seeing their hard work thrown to the dirt stamped on and called names simply because a choice that was made..

Not only that, but a choice that *had* to be made by Frontier's account. At the moment, they can't deliver the game without the server.

Meaning, if you removed the server tomorrow, they have nothing to deliver on Nov. 22 or Dec. 16.

That really, really sucks, but what else were they supposed to do when it became apparent they couldn't deliver fully offline without altering what could be delivered in the online version?

On edit: I happened to back it for the opposite of single play offliners. I wanted the multiplayer. I wanted the evolving galaxy. If you had to choose, do you deliver the offline version at the expense of the online version, or deliver the online version at the expense of the offline. I imagine they had to go with where the numbers are. A truly hard decision. But what were they supposed to do?

 

[the-monk]

The thing is what use are pre-order goodies if you dont have access to the internet for extended periods and can't even play the game?

Yes but what if his circumstances change and he has more time to play on a reliable connection?

He is still going to loose the extras.

 

[mattensky]

If someone could tell me how much data on average per hour it would take to play online, and the minimum connection speed required to play the game without any adverse affect on permofance - and these requirements turned out to be trivial - I, personally would feel a lot better about this.

Does anyone know?

For those of us with poor internet connections, and small download limits (that are unavoidable due to geography, or whatever) - this is a big deal.

 

[Zieman]

It may not suit your viewpoint but I have no problem with a game in 2014 expecting you to have an internet connection to play.

I have no problem with that either.

The thing that does contradict my sense of fairness is advertising offline play and then suddenly saying "naah, we were just kidding" just prior launch.

 

[Skeloton]

Heres hoping someone or group of people don't DDOS the server/s.

 

[Zieman]

Heres hoping someone or group of people don't DDOS the server/s.

Now that's just mean. Nobody wants that.

 

[EAGLE 5]

I have no problem with that either.

The thing that does contradict my sense of fairness is advertising offline play and then suddenly saying "naah, we were just kidding" just prior launch.

That's trivializing it a bit though. It's more like "well, we weren't able to" and admitting to that is not that easy, case and point this thread which is the fastest growing forum thread I've ever seen.

 

[Gyson]

The online servers provide all of the data and processing for the galaxy, interactions between players and all transactions of value. Without it there isn't a game. We always intended that the way to play the game would be online. We had hoped that we could do an offline variant, but as the game progressed the online requirement superseded that. It wasn't an easy choice to make, but to stay true to the game we set out to make we had to make this choice.

Michael

I'm a little flabbergasted here, as the statement "we had hoped that we could do an offline variant" seems to be a way of trying to distance yourself from the fact that an offline mode of the game was absolutely and repeatedly advertised and promised to the players. As the decision to remove this option couldn't have occurred just recently, as you knew from forum feedback for close to a year now that offline gameplay was extremely popular with the players, why are we only finding out about its removal now at the last minute?

I'd appreciate a straight answer, as the reluctance to break bad news and flower everything up is leading to more confusion than is necessary: Will a single player or group of friends be able to play Elite Dangerous together without ever having to see or interact with other players beyond those they specifically choose to play the game with? Because to me that is what "offline" gameplay is all about. If I have to keep an internet connection going so the server can send and receive updates while I'm playing, that's fine, I expected that.

 

[Zak Gordon]

Technically as a Kickstarter backer you will not be entitled to a refund. However, no-one yet knows what stance Frontier will actually take on this.

Really? But i'm getting a product i can no longer play. I know Kickstarter is not like an online (or physical) store, but you are right that the clarification from FD on the status of those that can or can not get a refund needs clearing up.

I'm waiting with the Contact Us page open, and trying to find all my info to prepare for the refund option.

 

[LucyFer]

I have no problem with that either.

The thing that does contradict my sense of fairness is advertising offline play and then suddenly saying "naah, we were just kidding" just prior launch.

They didn't say that.

They said they couldn't make the gameplay they advertised with it....they really tried.

So unfortunately scrapped it and it's hurt them.

Anyone who can't now play it should be due a refund IMO.

I don't see what is so weird in what I'm saying.

 

[zexpe]

Again.. I don´t worry that FD shutdown the server...they want you the Multiplayer as Cashcow ....

They may not have any choice in the matter. They could go bust. What is there to protect our investment in this game if they go bust? It'd be a shame if we could never play this game again X years into the future just because FD servers are no longer online. It's not vital to have it now, but they could at least provide some commitment to keep the game alive beyond the inevitable and eventual shutdown of servers.

 

[Skeloton]

Now that's just mean. Nobody wants that.

I was being genuine, I can see someone doing it. Not saying it will happen with certainty. I haven't the will or means to perform such douchbaggery. Knowing my luck it'll happen the day I want to play.