No Single Player offline Mode then?

[stephen_usher]

Really, that's the issue. For those of us who pledged big in Kickstarter, our money is gone. That's always the (understood) risk... and up until this evening, I've never seriously regretted pledging as high as I did. Legally, I haven't a leg to stand on in terms of ever getting that money back.

Actually, this has not been tested in court yet and there's no precedent.

As I understand it, under English law the statements made during the Kickstarter could be deemed as an implied contract irrespective of the boiler plate Kickstarter rules. We'd need an English contract lawyer to determine if this is the case, plus a court case. (To be honest, no-one except lawyers would win in the end, so best not think about it.)

 

[mattensky]

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.

Frankly, I can't understand why you're commenting at all. If this decision doesn't affect you - why attack people who are affected by it? As I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain earlier, I have very limited internet access at home. Due to the poor infrastructure where I live, only 1 ISP can service my house, and the service is unreliable and I have limited data.

As a consequence I only choose to buy games that have offline play. When I purchased ED ~ 6 weeks ago, I did so on the basis that I could play it offline on release. It clearly stated that this would be possible at the elitedangerous.com store.

As a result, I feel immensely disappointed and let down to learn that this is no longer going to happen.

 

[SJT]

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?

Exactly. Just when did it become apparent? Today? I think not.

 

[nexxo]

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.

Even small latencies count in multiplayer dogfights, but how is even 3.5 seconds delay vital in the process of buying and selling some cargo?

Remember that none of this is an issue with EVE Online.

 

[FX2K]

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.

Indeed... but that was a scenario included in your post I quoted, in bold below..

You would need a different seed for every single copy of the offline single player game. Everyone would have to have their own content-unique world. If the offline static game used the same seed for everyone then all it would take is one player to plaster it all over the internet and YouTube that the Thargoids are located at such and such, that Raxxla is at coordinates so and so, and reveal any other nuggets of info they've either datamined from their saved game or descovered directly. That kind of thing could be disaterous from a sales point of for a game that is priding itself on the unknown. Not to mention spoiling it for many players!

The more I think about it the more an offline mode seems to be a pandoras box.

 

[Adept]

The problem here is that you'd have access to the server which isn't something we'd want to allow as it contains the secrets of the galaxy. Which was also an issue with an online version.

Michael

I'm so glad to hear my no. 1 concern has actually been acknowledged by Frontier. The "solo offline" option has nagged on me ever since I heard about it during the KS for that very reason. An offline server would be cracker and datamined in hours, days or at the latest weeks, and the only way to avoid the spoilers would be to never go online again.

It would have of course been for the best to realise this from the start, but this is such a weight off my mind

 

[Juniper]

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?

Why did they design it that way from the outset? They didn't have to design it that way... they could have taken any number of decisions, but they prioritised their (frankly dreadful) "multiplayer" over supporting offline play. That's a decision, or series of decisions, that Frontier made over time. At no point in the DDF did they hint that offline mode wasn't going to be an option.

It's not like they didn't know from the outset that an offline mode was a core requirement?

As a result, they've painted themselves into a corner, and now they're (we're) stuck.

If Frontier are getting criticised for this - well, sorry, but they truly deserve it in this case.

 

[Malisane]

You would need a different seed for every single copy of the offline single player game. Everyone would have to have their own content-unique world. If the offline static game used the same seed for everyone then all it would take is one player to plaster it all over the internet and YouTube that the Thargoids are located at such and such, that Raxxla is at coordinates so and so, and reveal any other nuggets of info they've either datamined from their saved game or descovered directly. That kind of thing could be disaterous from a sales point of for a game that is priding itself on the unknown. Not to mention spoiling it for many players!

The more I think about it the more an offline mode seems to be a pandoras box.

I'm sorry, what? How is that different from almost every game ever published? Hello Mass Effect series or Guild Wars 2 for examples?

 

[LucyFer]

Frankly, I can't understand why you're commenting at all. If this decision doesn't affect you - why attack people who are affected by it. As I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain earlier, I have very limited internet access at home. Due to the poor infrastructure where I live, only 1 ISP can service my house, and the service is unreliable and I have limited data.

As a consequence I only choose to buy games that have offline play. When I purchased ED ~ 6 weeks ago, I did so on the basis that I could play it offline on release. It clearly stated that this would be possible at the elitedangerous.com store.

As a result, I feel immensely disappointed and let down to learn that this is no longer going to happen.

I'm attacking no-one....you in point of fact, attacked me.

It does affect me when peeps are calling FD employees liars and should be sacked.

I believe in this company.

So I'll stick up for them.

 

[Amiga]

FD want dynamic market in game so let allow game to connect once per day to make update. If internet is unavailable then will try next day.

 

[OillyRag]

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.

you should have been here when everyone was arguing about the flight model

 

[Mephane]

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

A sufficiently high rate of legit accesses is indistinguishable from a DDOS.

 

[Enride]

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.

But their official announcement in the newsletter was that it couldnt live up to their own expectations of a living dynamic universe.

Then the REAL reason came only after an initial storm of critique as people didnt accept their original explenation since its seemed rather...political...

This thread has gone insane because the offline is way more important then some may want to believe, honesty even with bad news is important to some, and apperently insulting and ridiculing others while at the same time defending a very obvious marketing misfire seems very important to some.

Makes for a mess of a thread.

 

[Atinus]

Exactly. Just when did it become apparent? Today? I think not.

You don't know when they abandoned this feature. And neither do I. They announced it when they were ready to announce it.

But the implication that they've been hiding this for months and months is baseless speculation.

 

[Skeloton]

A sufficiently high rate of legit accesses is indistinguishable from a DDOS.

There is that too but I/we have no idea how many will be trying to play. Forum users tend to be only a small percentage of people that actually play.

 

[Jedra7609]

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.

It is extremely unlikely that FD have breached Kickstarter rules and as you have not purchased a product (pledging on a KS is not the same as buying goods), you are probably not covered by any consumer laws.

Having said this, I have been party to many Kickstarters where the project creator has offered refunds anyway. I would imagine that FD will assess the fallout for this and produce a statement.

Personally I don't think that FD's motives are underhand and everything about this project so far has told me that they will act with integrity.

We will just have to wait and see what their stance is.

 

[FX2K]

I'm so glad to hear my no. 1 concern has actually been acknowledged by Frontier. The "solo offline" option has nagged on me ever since I heard about it during the KS for that very reason. An offline server would be cracker and datamined in hours, days or at the latest weeks, and the only way to avoid the spoilers would be to never go online again.

It would have of course been for the best to realise this from the start, but this is such a weight off my mind

I would stay away from the internet then (please dont take offence to that)
"secrets", spoilers, hacks, glitches and no doubt more will be found and published on the internet even with online only. That's just how it works these days. And whilst I am not too bothered about the lack of offline mode, I must admit, I prefer offline games for those reasons... so I don't have to face 'hacking / cheating' players which is all too common with MP. AI bots suit me fine.

 

[Atinus]

It's not like they didn't know from the outset that an offline mode was a core requirement?

Surely they did. And I've no doubt they tried to deliver it. But that's my question. If it didn't work, what else were they supposed to do but announce that it doesn't work? If you're in Frontier's shoes what would you do at this stage to make this right?

 

[Juniper]

Actually, this has not been tested in court yet and there's no precedent.

As I understand it, under English law the statements made during the Kickstarter could be deemed as an implied contract irrespective of the boiler plate Kickstarter rules. We'd need an English contract lawyer to determine if this is the case, plus a court case. (To be honest, no-one except lawyers would win in the end, so best not think about it.)

Indeed. It's not really something I would care to pursue, as the only ones who would benefit would be the lawyers.

For me, it's simply a betrayal of trust. I start to wonder what else from the Kickstarter they will quietly drop. After all, what use is there for a boxed copy now when the game requires you to be online all the time? :S

 

[EAGLE 5]

You don't know when they abandoned this feature. And neither do I. They announced it when they were ready to announce it.

But the implication that they've been hiding this for months and months is baseless speculation.

Indeed. There is evidence that they had some solo/offline modules (I believe some were used in some conventions to demo the game) which leads me to believe that they gave it a shot up until it became obvious that it would not work. Maybe they can give another crack at it in the future when they aren't under the REAL PRESSURE (and promise) which was to release the game by 2014.