Release a cut down server to run on people's machines. Remove all the background simulation stuff and multiplayer shenanigans, and put a mock in place that would respond to server commands.
Last edited:
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Release a cut down server to run on people's machines. Remove all the background simulation stuff and multiplayer shenanigans, and put a mock in place that would respond to server commands.
I also dont want attacking you...but HOW you can believe in this Company, after THIS???...what if they ONLY an EXAMPLE say we cut down to 1000 System or what they even now do release the MULTIPLAYER not complete with all planed Content ?
What if an FOR you Important part will be rippoff lets say on 10 Dec.....
Although I am not one of the people affected by this recent development, I really feel for those that will be. Particularly those who purchased 'access' to the game because it did offer an offline mode, due to circumstances of remote location, military deployment or whatever.
However, to any Australians who are affected by this, all is not lost. Under Australian Competition and Consumer Laws, 'mis-leading' consumers is something that is taken quite seriously, and no amount of EULA or other 'agreement' can reduce or remove your rights. You simply cannot 'contract away' your rights. Period.
Can I suggest lodging a formal complaint with the ACCC, an independent, self-propelled, government backed, law body that aggressively pursues companies who operate in the consumer domain that misleads or mis-informs consumers as to products they consume. Although this may not apply to the original Kickstarter campaign, as it is similar to gambling, it would cover the beta product we have all been playing up until now.
Their website : https://www.accc.gov.au/
IF anyone is familiar with this body, you will know they are similar to a rabid attack dog, that once out of the cage, is near impossible to put back in until they have had their feed. The fines are HUGE for non-compliant companies acting in contradiction to Consumer Law in Australia. EA games was famously screwed quite royally by the ACCC, and adjusted their performance in the Australian market following legal action brought against them.
Its wont be a great outcome for any and all, but for the consumer, its a 'fire-and-forget' model, wherein the ACCC does all the legwork following complaints, and the consumer usually just moves on after filing complaint, only to hear about the outcomes some time down the track.
At the very least it might encourage to FD to re-adjust their product model, and re-invest in the 'offline-mode' in order to avoid fines and headaches that this process will undoubtedly produce if successful.
As I said, I wont personally be affected by this removal of the offline mode, but I think there is a reasonable case to answer between FD and its offline consumers.
However, to any Australians who are affected by this, all is not lost. Under Australian Competition and Consumer Laws, 'mis-leading' consumers is something that is taken quite seriously, and no amount of EULA or other 'agreement' can reduce or remove your rights. You simply cannot 'contract away' your rights. Period.
Can I suggest lodging a formal complaint with the ACCC, an independent, self-propelled, government backed, law body that aggressively pursues companies who operate in the consumer domain that misleads or mis-informs consumers as to products they consume. Although this may not apply to the original Kickstarter campaign, as it is similar to gambling, it would cover the beta product we have all been playing up until now.
Their website : https://www.accc.gov.au/
IF anyone is familiar with this body, you will know they are similar to a rabid attack dog, that once out of the cage, is near impossible to put back in until they have had their feed. The fines are HUGE for non-compliant companies acting in contradiction to Consumer Law in Australia. EA games was famously screwed quite royally by the ACCC, and adjusted their performance in the Australian market following legal action brought against them.
Its wont be a great outcome for any and all, but for the consumer, its a 'fire-and-forget' model, wherein the ACCC does all the legwork following complaints, and the consumer usually just moves on after filing complaint, only to hear about the outcomes some time down the track.
At the very least it might encourage to FD to re-adjust their product model, and re-invest in the 'offline-mode' in order to avoid fines and headaches that this process will undoubtedly produce if successful.
As I said, I wont personally be affected by this removal of the offline mode, but I think there is a reasonable case to answer between FD and its offline consumers.
No it's not easy.
But the way it's been handled together with the other rather... Er... "ambiguous " content of the newsletter fills me with a slight sense of trepidation.
It's a sub-par way to treat people who've paid a lot of money and spent a lot of time on this product, and it worries me (as a gamma backer) what precisely I'll see next month.
Still got fingers crossed and a (sort of) smile, but that newsletter could have been read lots of different ways...
Thought they weren't going to do that.
How they do it with all other Games....UPDATE/UPGRADE....
Totally small, but very demanding. Like animal rights activists.
I know I don't know. I'd like to know. I expect other people would like to know if they bought the game thinking there wold be an offline mode when Frontier knew there wouldn't be. At no point did I see them rebutting any claims that there would be an offline mode, even from their own mods. (One mod in particular claimed he got his information from Michael Brookes).
I'm pretty sure planetary landings won't be easy. Bet they won't drop that... Or will they?
Its not and I never said it was. Maybe some of us want FD to break the mold and do things a little differenty huh? Would make a nice change for a developer to put pride into keeping their game word integrity unspoiled and just as exciting for a player starting on day one of release, or five years down the line.
I don't get why so many of you say it's ok for FD to go back on their word for reason X or Y and people should just suck it up. Do you think blaming the backers for putting their faith in the kickstarter campaign sends the right message to FD? If everything is built on the server side, it's pretty obvious the devs must have known for some time that offline wouldn't be an option. Yet they are only informing us now. Now that it's too late to request a refund for alpha/beta backers. I think it raises some legitimate concerns. What's to prevent them from switching to an online subscription model in 6 months stating "sorry, we really tried to keep it free"? There's no falling back on an offline mode if this happens now. I think this whole thing stinks and could have been handled a lot better if the team had been more upfront with us.
I agree! I dislike being built up over a feature which is the ONLY reason I preordered AND then beta backed only to be shafted at the last minute. Really p***ed off. Return my money and I'll return your lie of a game!
Bah I think Human and Animal rights should be exactly the same. We are animals after all.
Sometimes in life you have to place trust in things.
I'm not placing my life or a loved ones well-being in someones hands...I'm placing that of a computer game.
I believe Michael, David et Al communicate as openly and honestly as they can.
I also believe they've spent the last year stressed out their minds, no matter how they appear.
I'm just gonna go on faith from what I've seen and played...yes this is a let-down to some but wow are peeps over-reacting IMO.
If they let me down on release and the game lets me down...so be it.....it's only a computer game.
I have perspective. No-one's died. There's real things in life to get upset about - not a computer game.
Last edited:
I hope they do take another crack at it, but the impression from Michael's posts has been that they only thought about it lastminute.com and then realised "Ah shoot, it doesn't work...". It's not a priority for them.
I also think you'll find that most backers weren't too bothered about a 2014 release. I think most want it to be released when it's ready. If that ended up being June next year, so be it.
Before people start calling in the lawyers I would suggest they talk to FD first. At this point we don't not know their stance on obtaining a refund (especially since the obvious passion shown in this thread) or other recompense.
Who knows, if you explain your situation and request a refund, you might just get it.
EDIT ---> I forgot to mention that any arbitration service will always tell you to ask for resolution before they will get involved anyway.
Last edited:
Injected events were always for the shared online universe only.
EDIT: ninja'd
Which would mean a different development branch for offline. I'd have dropped it too.
I'm pretty sure planetary landings won't be easy. Bet they won't drop that... Or will they?
They cant drop that seeing as they're asking us to pony up more cash for it. Least that's what I expect, never really bothered to find out if it were paid expansions.
- Status