News - Elite: Dangerous single-player offline mode officially ditched

Quote:

---

The single-player offline mode was promised during the game's Kickstarter campaign.

---

Read more.

Seems short-sighted to me. Surely it's up to the players to decide what's "unacceptably limited and static". I for one would much rather have the option to play off-line - now my choice is "play online, or play something else"? Thanks David. Wonder how many of your backers you've just alienated....

This was one of the reasons I contributed to the Kickstarter. Not happy.

^-- This. I don't have much time to play any more with family commitments, training, and work. I don't want to spend the little time I do have, playing with teenagers screaming about each other's mums.

It does say that the single player mode may only need to connect to the servers 'occasionally'.

And we all know how well these purely online games work when the servers have issues... in my opinion there should ALWAYS be the option of an offline mode in a game where we pay for it at the start, whether it's a case of being able to do 'mini missions' or build more things in a city. Simply put, a static/limited offline experience is better than no experience.

And what happens when the servers get shut down....

Now if this was a free to play game where you could chose not to spend money on 'extra features' then it's a different situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b0redom

It does say that the single player mode may only need to connect to the servers 'occasionally'.

---

^ This.
The reason it has to be an occasional online sync is because of the massive galaxy-changing events that will be happening during the online. If the Feds come along and wipe out half the Empire's empire, that's a lot of things that will change, with a massive war in between.

For complete offline, you'd get your installation disks. Then every time something big in the galaxy changed, they'd have to ship an update disk to every offliner. Every time.
After a while, that would eat up the cash they have for the game itself.

Far better to stay mostly offline, but get updates every so often. No different to getting patches, really.

No longer interested. Promise of a single-player mode was the reason I would have bought this. Glad I didn't back the Kickstarter project, I'd have been rather angry! I do believe you can get a refund though ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sykobee

This was one of the reasons I contributed to the Kickstarter. Not happy.

---

It's the reason I DON'T back things on Kickstarter, you aren't sure what you'll get.
In development games change a lot, design decisions need to be made and this may well be the right decision for Elite. The difference is that most games the public would either be unaware of the games existence or at least hadn't spent any money. Although it isn't, many people see Kickstarter as a pre-order rather than patronage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

^ This.
The reason it has to be an occasional online sync is because of the massive galaxy-changing events that will be happening during the online. If the Feds come along and wipe out half the Empire's empire, that's a lot of things that will change, with a massive war in between.

---

And that should be optional. Some people want to play they game they get out of the box. Again. 10+ years down the line even. If some server is changing what that game is, or worse, some other players are, then that's unsatisfactory to some. Of course, it is want people in an MMO want, so that's fine, but it would have been better to make it clear that this was an MMO, not playing off the aspects that were present in the original Elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacein_vader

Although it isn't, many people see Kickstarter as a pre-order rather than patronage.

---

Or worse still, some kind of investment that gives them a say in how the thing is developed, as per some of Star Citizen's more vocal supporters.

I'm perfectly OK with this.
From the sounds of it, Elite will still be available as single player, but you will need to apply periodic updates, so pretty much as it works right now but without needing to be permanently connected is all.
The KS page did speak about the 'intended' singleplayer experience and mentioned the 'possibility' of synching with the game server, which was under investigation at the time.

Expansions would have to be paid for and likely downloaded anyway, so I don't see what the big fuss is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

so I don't see what the big fuss is about.

---

Personally, it's about playing the game out of the box. And being able to have the same experience 10 years later or at my own pace, independent of other players or servers. If I want to mod the game, or play on an easier difficulty setting, that's all possible in an independent game, but very hard on a synchronised one.

Others find the idea of having to connect to a server to play a single player game off-putting, and there are numerous examples where the single player experience has suffered as a result (Diablo 3, Sims 4, to name two recent cases). Let alone the experience down the line when servers are shut off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Seems short-sighted to me. Surely it's up to the players to decide what's "unacceptably limited and static". I for one would much rather have the option to play off-line - now my choice is "play online, or play something else"? Thanks David. Wonder how many of your backers you've just alienated....

---

Well-said. I wonder if they're just trying to minimise the bug fix workload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

And being able to have the same experience 10 years later or at my own pace, independent of other players or servers.

---

That's pretty much what the Online Solo mode is and Offline will be.
But the whole primary brief was centred around an online game that changed and developed, with everyone able to influence things, anyway. I can't see the interest in only playing half the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

If I want to mod the game, or play on an easier difficulty setting, that's all possible in an independent game, but very hard on a synchronised one.

---

I've always been a bit confused by the whole modding thing - I know there's the hobbyist side and all, but in general if a game is so bad that it needs modding, why would people back it in the first place?
From a business perspective, why let players mod your own work and go play it on their own servers when it takes money/bods away from your own official one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Others find the idea of having to connect to a server to play a single player game off-putting,

---

As is (or will be), you don't have to be connected all the time to play. Just long enough to download and apply the updates, same as playing a Steam game in Offline mode. If you don't want those, fair enough, but the whole point is to keep it an ongoing game, which requires updates, which means connectivity if you want them cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

there are numerous examples where the single player experience has suffered as a result (Diablo 3, Sims 4, to name two recent cases).

---

But the single player experience is pretty much the same as the online one. You just choose whether to interact with humans or not. Offline would be the same again, but where nothing changes and you're pretty much back to the days of Freelancer and all its limitations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Let alone the experience down the line when servers are shut off.

---

That's up to us to keep playing and keep things going though, isn't it?
If too many people stop playing, the servers will close.

Still not seeing the point of 100% offline and how that would make for much interesting play...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

But the whole primary brief was centred around an online game that changed and developed, with everyone able to influence things, anyway. I can't see the interest in only playing half the game.

---

I think the brief was simpler than that: Make a new Elite game.

Quote:

---

I've always been a bit confused by the whole modding thing - I know there's the hobbyist side and all, but in general if a game is so bad that it needs modding, why would people back it in the first place?
From a business perspective, why let players mod your own work and go play it on their own servers when it takes money/bods away from your own official one?

---

There is no one way to play games. Nor is every gamer the same. When you make a game you cater for what you hope is the widest market possible, but you can't catch everything. Modding, difficulty options etc. allow you to cheaply broaden the appeal of the game in a way you can't do when players have to have a level playing field.

Quote:

---

As is (or will be), you don't have to be connected all the time to play. Just long enough to download and apply the updates, same as playing a Steam game in Offline mode. If you don't want those, fair enough, but the whole point is to keep it an ongoing game, which requires updates, which means connectivity if you want them cheaper.

---

Then the point of the game (MMO like) is not what I originally was sold. A lot of the fun in games like Elite, Ultima VII etc. is playing them again with a fresh world state. A persistent universe is great for an MMO and has it's own plus points, but it's at the expense of those of us who want a fresh world state some time after the game's release date.

Quote:

---

But the single player experience is pretty much the same as the online one. You just choose whether to interact with humans or not. Offline would be the same again, but where nothing changes and you're pretty much back to the days of Freelancer and all its limitations.

---

Offline would be great - the universe changing at the pace YOU are playing the game, not other people who have more time or whatever.

Quote:

---

That's up to us to keep playing and keep things going though, isn't it?
If too many people stop playing, the servers will close.

---

Well that's my point - I don't want it to be dependant on other people. If I buy a game I want it to work to my schedule, not dependant on a third party, especially not ones as fickle as my fellow gamers ;)

Quote:

---

Still not seeing the point of 100% offline and how that would make for much interesting play...?

---

Being able to play a good game as it is out of the box is infinitely more interesting than trying to play a game that won't work because it can't connect to servers.

Extremely saddened by this. Pretty much agree with everything kalniel said, I wasn't too happy with this game being online, always played Beta in single player mode and hope they had implemented offline single player by release. I guess that's another dream crushed.

BTW, Ttaskmaster...

Quote:

---

Still not seeing the point of 100% offline and how that would make for much interesting play...?

---

Did you ever play the original Elite, or Frontier: Elite 2? Were they online? No. Did they not provide hours, upon hours, upon hours of IMMENSE fun that you made for yourself, at your own pace, without being ganked/abused/interrupted by other players? Hell yes! And that's what I was duped into thinking I was buying.

Wonder if they'll offer refunds? LOL!

Good to see another proper debate on Hexus! Always fun ;)

A lot of good points being made here, and I'm definitely siding with the 'against' camp at this point! It definitely does highlight the risks of Kickstarter - I had a similar issue with Planetary Annihilation, which I backed. The finished game is (according to reviews) very good - but it's so online multiplayer biased as to be completely unappealing to me.

Moral of the story - be VERY careful what you back on kickstarter!

Alright, well it's not too bad if it's only the occasional connection needed. However, some more information on the frequency of this would be useful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Then the point of the game (MMO like) is not what I originally was sold.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

And that's what I was duped into thinking I was buying.

Wonder if they'll offer refunds? LOL!

---

I'll say again: You weren't sold anything, you haven't bought anything. You provided patronage for a game to be developed, if you offered enough you were gifted a copy of the end result, if indeed it got that far. It was not a pre-order.

I have almost zero interest in an online game, or even one that gets updated in batches to reflect changes in the online world. I don't have the time to keep up and play regularly...

I might not play for weeks, I'd come back 5/10/20 updates later and find the whole game world had a different tone and I needed to change tack and re-immerse into the "current" at every play - no thanks, that just sounds incredibly annoying. To draw an analogy it sounds like playing Rome2 and every time I play the faction alliances and provinces have been randomised so my armies are now all in the wrong place and nothing is how I remember it.

Oh well, guess I won't be buying Elite Dangerous then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I think the brief was simpler than that: Make a new Elite game. ...

---

Oh, I'm a lot more cynical than that. I think the brief is "Make an Elite-like game exactly the way David Braben wants it to be and he'll brook no argument over what that means".

I've said elsewhere, I don't want David Braben trying to tell me how to experience video games. I'm *still* playing the original Elite (an emulated NES version - I agree with both Braben and Bell that it's the best version of the original Elite) thirty years on. As others have said, if "offline" mode needs to connect to servers at all, that's just not going to be possible with E: D. And while I fully accept that David Braben has every right to make that call, I think it's the wrong one, and it's certainly cooled a lot of my enthusiasm for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

I've said elsewhere, I don't want David Braben trying to tell me how to experience video games.

---

Then don't buy his game to begin with.
As is, I'm feeling very much the same way about Chris Roberts's latest effort. But that's just my personal tastes and preferences conflicting with his. I funded the game to be made the way the Devs wanted it, rather than how some clueless publisher demanded it. That's what the project briefs actually said, though I paraphrase, and this is what is being delivered with both games.

I did not pay to have a say in anything myself and merely trusted/hoped that it would turn out OK. Even now, I'm still hoping for a fun Star Citizen game and I feel the same about Elite... but with more confidence, as I'm actually playing the Beta and can see what it's like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

Did you ever play the original Elite, or Frontier: Elite 2? Were they online? No. Did they not provide hours, upon hours, upon hours of IMMENSE fun that you made for yourself, at your own pace, without being ganked/abused/interrupted by other players? Hell yes! And that's what I was duped into thinking I was buying.

---

I owned the original Elite... Flippin' thing wouldn't ever load off the cassette, though!

*WERE* you actually duped, though... or did you just not read the project description?
I've always understood I would be playing online, with the choice over whether or not I would meet other human players (so that takes care of your ganking fears). The offline mode was always an "intended" thing, but however much you intend for something, it doesn't always happen.

Chris Roberts "intended" Freelancer to have a dynamic economy and many other features, but that never happened in the end. 11 years later, the game is still being played in both Modded and Vanilla modes even after Microsoft shut the servers down.

For those interested, https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59481 gives a run-down of why this has happened.

The majority want the online which, in its current state, now makes the Offline version either highly awkward to achieve or so utterly limited that it's pretty much a pointless and separate mini-game by comparison... and you can bet your Beta Access that people would be complaining if they got that, as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I think the brief was simpler than that: Make a new Elite game.

---

The very opening description states that it will be an online, multiplayer, peer-to-peer, lobby-less, etc, version of Elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Then the point of the game (MMO like) is not what I originally was sold.

---

As someone else has said, you were sold nothing. You donated funds to help some Devs make what they wanted the way they wanted. You're now getting exactly that. A best, you bought a pre-order of an unfinished game, still liable to changes, which was also stated on the store page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Offline would be great - the universe changing at the pace YOU are playing the game, not other people who have more time or whatever.

---

Well, it wouldn't be changing. That's the point. It would be static, aside from maybe random price fluctuations.
You'd also not get any updates for new drivers or new OSes that might otherwise be neccesary, as they'd require you to go online and download them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Well that's my point - I don't want it to be dependant on other people. If I buy a game I want it to work to my schedule, not dependant on a third party, especially not ones as fickle as my fellow gamers ;)

---

Once again, that was all there in the initial description...
As is, players can influence things if enough of them get together... but they can't blow up a planet or anything. Any major changes will be from the Devs only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Being able to play a good game as it is out of the box is infinitely more interesting than trying to play a game that won't work because it can't connect to servers.

---

So what do you do when you've explored everywhere, owned every ship, have more money than you can spend, become Elite and all that...?
I reached that point in Freelancer quite quickly and only the online aspect kept me playing to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacein_vader

I'll say again: You weren't sold anything, you haven't bought anything. You provided patronage for a game to be developed, if you offered enough you were gifted a copy of the end result, if indeed it got that far. It was not a pre-order.

---

I didn't give them money through Kickstarter, I bought the game from them through their website a couple of months back, one and a half years after the Kickstarter fund ended. I am pretty sure that counts as a pre-order. At my time of purchase, single player (as in offline mode) was available.

As long as there is a solo/single player version that means I don't have to interact with another human ever in the game then I think I might give it a go. I would be happier with an offline game. I really wouldn't want things to change in a solo version that I hadn't effected.

As far as I am aware, we can't play offline at the moment, we can choose to play alone, but we still need to be connected to the server. We do have the choice to play solo, connect to a private group or play the game whilst connected on an open server.

To me all this means is that we will never have the ability to play solo without first connecting to a server and checking for game updates. Which for most is not really going to be an issue, but for a few it means that they will have to be connected to the internet when they can't be or it might limit their options to come back to the game some time in to the future once the game has reached that point where the servers they need are no longer kept running for them to access it due to an insufficient number of players still using the service.

I can understand concerns of being ganked, which won't be possible if you choose to play in solo mode or as part of a private group even though you have to log in to a server before you can start playing in solo mode, as far as I can tell connecting to the server is simply to update game and authenticate users, kind of like DRM etc...

I also understand the point about the world moving on while you are not online. Choosing to play the role of an explorer finding uncharted parts of the Universe then taking a break for a few days to return and find someone else found that corner of the universe and mapped the area that you were trying to chart would certainly ruin that sense of immersion.

The bit I'm confused about is how will the 'ever changing' universe make that much of a difference to casual/solo players?

What exactly is it that you would be doing that would be so broken by these changes?

Do you think that 1,000's of online players leveling up and upgrading their ships is going to change your solo game that much?

For me I am looking forward to playing online, I haven't done it yet and I haven't been paying much attention to the chatter on the Elite forums lately either as I simply haven't had the time, but what I am planning to do is try the open servers and if I don't like it stick to playing in my Private group(s) so I can play and explore with friends, which is how I have been playing it so far.

Here is a reminder of how this project started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrrN...eBx6pkeWO2q5Xe
Quite early in the short video David Braben says, "This is the game that we at Frontier have wanted to make for a long time", so quite clearly he has already stated that he is making a game that he and his team wants to make and then he outlines some of the key aspects to the game that he and his team are excited about.

so that means he can pay backer-money back and from a lot others since many backed it for a offline game and don't care for mmo at all , thanks braben for destroying my dreams of a new Elite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsSpirit

so that means he can pay backer-money back and from a lot others since many backed it for a offline game and don't care for mmo at all , thanks braben for destroying my dreams of a new Elite

---

I'm confused, at what point did he ever promise an offline game?

In the video I linked above he is clearly talking about an online universe. That was the vision he talked about when he launched the campaign on 9th November 2012.

On the list of dumb things to do, turning a single player game into a space sim mmorg and telling your customers at the month before launch date is just plain dumb. Have two versions of the game, one with the online content and one with it disabled, for one I could live without the elite news service and the other players. A random mission generator is quite good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

I also understand the point about the world moving on while you are not online. Choosing to play the role of an explorer finding uncharted parts of the Universe then taking a break for a few days to return and find someone else found that corner of the universe and mapped the area that you were trying to chart would certainly ruin that sense of immersion.

---

Precisely. Also it means there's a very different experience playing the game in the future than playing it on the day of release. I get that it's exciting to take part in a global race for the stars if you've got the time to compete, but there's definitely a single player market out there that want to do things at their own pace. Persistent universe does put a sell by date on things, particular on that explorer aspect.

I have to agree that its disappointing. As a fan of the original Elite and of the largely inferior X / X2 I was hoping that the new game was going to top the lot. Another online multiplayer game just puts in competition with Eve and the like which cheapens Elite in my opinion. Also it will presumably have ongoing subscription costs attached.

I like online multiplayers but there is something satisfying about exploring and discovering a vast universe yourself without 3rd party interference and not having to worry about getting left behind by everyone else when I don't have 4 hours to devote to playing it every night. Especially if they have already bought all the best real estate, mined all the best planets and kitted out the best ships, it can be pretty dispiriting.

You can just imagine that it will become the usual situation where those willing to spend the most money and time in the universe will gobble everything up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsSpirit

so that means he can pay backer-money back and from a lot others since many backed it for a offline game and don't care for mmo at all , thanks braben for destroying my dreams of a new Elite

---

I'm confused, at what point did he ever promise an offline game?

In the video I linked above he is clearly talking about an online universe. That was the vision he talked about when he launched the campaign on 9th November 2012.

---

Not really, the vision he has now in news letter 49 was not stated in any other, there was always a single and multiplayer and the multiplayer was online, mostly it was about the Alpha and Beta builds. Alpha phase 2 (Newsletter 16 31/01/2014) allowed multiplayer, it was the newsletter 25 on 09/06/2014 where David Braben first says he will be upgrading the servers for all the players expected on the 'premium beta' "“The start of the Premium Beta phase is another exciting moment in our development – from today we have over 10,000 additional people playing the game. This is a significant and sensible step-change with which to test the next level of scaling of our cloud-based systems and servers as we move towards the very large numbers of people we will eventually have playing. I once again would like to thank all those who played such an important role in the Alpha phase, which is now at an end. We’re looking forward to continuing to collaborate with the expanded community during the beta phase as we deliver greater scale, richer content and ever higher quality.”". But nothing at all at any time about the game being online only at release.

MechWarrior online was the same, look at the player base now, disgruntled and leaving.

Empty promises and years down the line still a PVP mash up with no story line of sort. Just more shiny mechs and more ways to waste your money on vanity items

Seems they are cutting a lot of features to get the game to a quick release for xmas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x2o

Seems they are cutting a lot of features to get the game to a quick release for xmas.

---

Well the original release date was March 2014, but I don't recall people threatening to call the FBI over that one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

Well the original release date was March 2014, but I don't recall people threatening to call the FBI over that one...

---

Easy on the dramatic overstatements please, they're getting a bit grating. Please are allowed differing opinions.

Personally I'm also a bit disappointed in this. I haven't got the time to be investing in an Eve like game where everything changes at the whim of a set of mad pirates. Imagine if standard trade routes new player rely on for their initial profits get ruined by spiteful individuals saturating the market. And heaven forbid I want to play the game somewhere without internet access for a while.

Think it's probably the first and last kickstart I'll back mostly due to the release date slipping then asking for more money to plan a beta version after the full game should have been released.

The more I think about it the more I think it won't bother me, but I do understand people's feelings on this and hope that for those of you that have paid that you at least give it a chance and hope you all find that you like it and your concerns are not as big as they seem at this point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbouk

Easy on the dramatic overstatements please, they're getting a bit grating.

---

Sadly, I'm not overstating. There actually *are* people on the Frontier forums trying to construct a case to present to the FBI... There are also people telling them how silly an idea that is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbouk

I haven't got the time to be investing in an Eve like game where everything changes at the whim of a set of mad pirates. Imagine if standard trade routes new player rely on for their initial profits get ruined by spiteful individuals saturating the market.

---

That *is* an overstatement.
Such events are likely to be something like a war between governments over a system or two, in which a sufficiently large number of players (as in many thousands) fighting on one side could just about tip the victory one way or another. Either way, the outcome would be the same and the economy would recover quite quickly.
Players and even clans will not have enough power to dramatically alter the galaxy. Those things are Dev-planned only, to keep everything balanced and working.
Same for trade routes - There will be dips and troughs as there are now, but they'd only last a matter of days. As is, there aren't really standard trade routes, as these things change over time. That's kinda the point of the dynamic economy - No sticking to one route, expecting to turn a consistent, easy profit. Even in the offline mode, NPCs are just as likely to spoil your plans with theor trading.

I'm really unsure about this news.

Here's why

Quote:

---

How will single-player online mode work? - Single player online does require a consistent connection.

Question: how often will the single-player client connect to the server? - At the moment it's whenever you need to conduct a server moderated transaction like trading.

---

Ok an online single player means no player ganking, esp in the starting systems, that has been effecting the beta tests already.
However AFAIK the world generation, trade goods prices and availability, equipment prices and availability, galaxy mapping, missions and other galactic effects (such as system economies) are all influenced by player action.
So if you've got a load of players buying up all a stations stock of computer trade goods, then you'll not be able to buy them and the price will go up.
That in turn effects the missions available at the station and even the current star system itself.
Mapping the galaxy, from what I've heard is currently a fairly profitable way of making money, but as more and more people do it you'll have to travel farther and farther out to find unexplored systems, so if you start playing a year down the line it'll make mapping very hard.
Mining, again as time goes on you'll have to go farther and farther out from the starting systems to find asteroids to mine.

If elite builds up the sort of community that EVE has, where you have large organised groups actively taking group actions to effect the world then your solo player experience could be radically effected by other players.

And then there's the loss of potential modding, now granted the original elite never supported modding, but having user created content can really increase the shelf life and popularity of a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

Such events are likely to be something like a war between governments over a system or two, in which a sufficiently large number of players (as in many thousands) fighting on one side could just about tip the victory one way or another. Either way, the outcome would be the same and the economy would recover quite quickly.
Players and even clans will not have enough power to dramatically alter the galaxy. Those things are Dev-planned only, to keep everything balanced and working.
Same for trade routes - There will be dips and troughs as there are now, but they'd only last a matter of days. As is, there aren't really standard trade routes, as these things change over time. That's kinda the point of the dynamic economy - No sticking to one route, expecting to turn a consistent, easy profit. Even in the offline mode, NPCs are just as likely to spoil your plans with theor trading.

---

Have you checked what happens in EVE, because these do happen, EVE dev's do have a very hands off approach they let players do things and greatly effect the world, that's part of EVE.
How much a part of it will effect elite dangerous we'll have to see, see how they react when you get 1000+ concerted players using the largest cargo ships to flood a system's market.
Or even just hundreds of players ganging up to effectively blockage a system, that was part of the ganking that was going on in the beta, where you got people in tricked out ASP's could pretty much take on any ship player or police.
Ok yes going into solo mode would mean not getting ganked, but they could cut off the majority of trade to and from a system or space station which would have a knock on effect on the system's economy.

Ok I may be blowing things out of proportion, but you have to consider what could happen as people will find a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

So if you've got a load of players buying up all a stations stock of computer trade goods, then you'll not be able to buy them and the price will go up.

---

Yep... Until that system has had a bit of time to make more and the station to restock. Then the price will go down again. Based on my Beta experience, that seems to take a few hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

Mapping the galaxy, from what I've heard is currently a fairly profitable way of making money, but as more and more people do it you'll have to travel farther and farther out to find unexplored systems, so if you start playing a year down the line it'll make mapping very hard.

---

Just had a thought - Condition inspection surveys and dynamic condition modelling. In other words, going back and re-checking to see if anything has changed over the past weeks/months/years, as well as charting that change and projecting future change.
We do this with our company assets ourselves and I actually manage the surveys (so I dunno why I didn't think of it before!). Already planets can be scanned multiple times and still yield rewards. It's only the first few scans that yield the serious megabucks, but subsequent scanners still make a living on it.
That repeat scanning and ongoing modelling is your continued reason to go exploring, right there... and no one person has to scan the same system each time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

Mining, again as time goes on you'll have to go farther and farther out from the starting systems to find asteroids to mine.

---

Depends how many big lumps of mineable rock drift in from other systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

If elite builds up the sort of community that EVE has, where you have large organised groups actively taking group actions to effect the world then your solo player experience could be radically effected by other players.

---

I was under the impression that even every player working together would not be enough to make radical changes. That the devs wanted to retain full control over such things, otherwise you'd end up with stations being blown up and all sorts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

How much a part of it will effect elite dangerous we'll have to see, see how they react when you get 1000+ concerted players using the largest cargo ships to flood a system's market.

---

What would they gain from this, since they can't own systems or stations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

Or even just hundreds of players ganging up to effectively blockage a system, that was part of the ganking that was going on in the beta, where you got people in tricked out ASP's could pretty much take on any ship player or police.

---

1 - Switch to Solo and bypass them.
2 - Take on any playable ship, yes... But I think the Devs there are taking the same approach as Star Citizen and having HUGE capital ships that can destroy anything mere players can throw at them, which are used as in-game policing of player-caused issues.
3 - NPCs will vastly outnumber players anyway, so for every Anaconda or Asp blockading, the NPCs can throw hundreds in. The idea seems to be that the governments are MASSIVE and that the whole playerbase can engage in a war with one of them, but would never number enough to fully wipe them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

Ok yes going into solo mode would mean not getting ganked, but they could cut off the majority of trade to and from a system or space station which would have a knock on effect on the system's economy.

---

They could affect things for a bit, perhaps, but bypassing them in Solo would keep the trade flowing behind their backs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

Ok I may be blowing things out of proportion, but you have to consider what could happen as people will find a way.

---

And the understanding is that the devs are keeping a lot more control over events like this, precisely to prevent EVE happening all over again.


That's my understanding, anyway.
It may all fail and die at the hands of some petty 12-year olds who think they're playing Call Of Spaceship! :D

Oh well, that's me out then. I was looking forward to this too.

Why not wait and see what form the final game takes? I'm disappointed too but reviews will address these concerns and then we can make a properly well-informed decision on it. And if it does suck, there's always Star Citizen.

This is all part of my point, how much player agency and dev agency there will be.

They way they where talking back in the kick starter is that they would be very little in the way of direct dev interaction, players would interact with the world, which would then cause events to trigger, which in turn would be resolved by player interaction.

eg one of the examples given.
A player finds a rare mineral rich asteroid, two planets will try to claim rights to it, so mercenary missions from both sides will be created, and the side that wins will be the one with the most player backing.

For an online game I don't have issue with this, for single player it would also work if the player was weighted, however the solo online system is a compromise is a simpler option and I can see why they've done it. It also makes co-op play far easier to do.

Unfortunately this is part of current game development, spin and PR, because everyone will throw their toys out of the pram and have a hissy fit.

I am a bit disappointed by the lack of single player, esp as that's going to kill any form of real modding scene and will remove any feeling of player agency from solo play but I do understand why they've gone they way they have and I'll still probably give it a go when it comes out.
I would be more enthusiastic if there was a single player only mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spl

Why not wait and see what form the final game takes? I'm disappointed too but reviews will address these concerns and then we can make a properly well-informed decision on it. And if it does suck, there's always Star Citizen.

---

The wait and see approach IMHO is a good common sense approach but I think throwing all our toys out of the cot might work too it's certainly more noticeable than the patiently waiting in silence approach, neither approach will change anything, so in the meantime I think I will wait it out with spl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

...I think throwing all our toys out of the cot might work too it's certainly more noticeable than the patiently waiting in silence approach...

---

Haha that is true :-) But it also makes gamers look bad! Like that whole Mass Effect 3 ending business. It worked (kind of) but the way people acted kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. It's not like people react like that to a bad film ending (say that Liam Neeson film with the wolves) and then the director changes the ending for them. Certainly this Elite Dangerous campaign business is more important than a disappointing ending though (though I guess some serious Mass Effect fans might disagree!).

outside of a few games , theres very little user modding available - cod? bf? wow? theres nowt in any of them

Glad I didn't support the kickstarter! My nostalgia for the original Elite has been put to bed now I know we are looking at a new EVE.......I hated the premise of that game.

After my poor experience with the beta (constant crashes, at best barely worked, tech support slow and awful) this is another annoying piece of news. One fo the stated goals was to have an offline playable game. Lesson learned and won't be supporting any more prducts before they're launched again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spl

It's not like people react like that to a bad film ending (say that Liam Neeson film with the wolves) and then the director changes the ending for them.

---

Actually, that does happen too. A number of films have been shown to test audiences and then altered depending on how these random people felt about it. Fairly common in Hollywood.
Difference here is that FD are not geared up to make the changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

outside of a few games , theres very little user modding available - cod? bf? wow? theres nowt in any of them

---

I still don't get modding, outside of a niche hobby interest.
The massive amount of Skyrim mods available just seems to say that, despite the huge areas and everything, the game still wasn't good enough...
Back when I was playing Thief (the original one) we had one graphics mod, a few cheats and that was it. There were a load of fan missions, but they all used the same basic game structure.
By comparison, Freelancer often got tweaked on privately run servers, but the mods seemed to focus on putting ships from TV shows into the game and it was more often just horribly unbalanced and poorly implemented.

I get the artistic feats from those who do it well, but IMO a game can't be that good if the first thing people want to do is mod it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

Actually, that does happen too. A number of films have been shown to test audiences and then altered depending on how these random people felt about it. Fairly common in Hollywood. Difference here is that FD are not geared up to make the changes.

---

Actually, the bigger difference is that those test audiences are being asked (in fact likely being paid for) their opinions. Bioware didn't ask gamers if the ending was acceptable and offer to change it if people didn't like it.

This is a comment from newsletter 50
"Elite: Dangerous Offline Mode - Q&A
From David Braben:

Each of the “Elite” games pushed the boundaries of the technology available. With Elite: Dangerous a major new feature is playing online, and we are pushing that hard now. Offline support was not one of our original aims, though we did believe we could support it at the start of the project. We do a great deal of processing in the cloud, and this benefits everyone playing. We had considered that an online connection is a reasonable pre-requisite for a game delivered online. I am really sorry this has upset people, but we have a strong, consistent vision that we do not want to compromise.

Below we have collected common questions from backers and the press and our answers so we can be clear about the situation.

Can I still play in single player mode?
Yes. Some people have thought that dropping 100% offline play means there wouldn’t be a single-player mode - to be clear, the single-player game is already there, but it requires a low bandwidth online connection for the reasons we explained.
I’ve even played on a laptop using a tethered connection on the train.

When was the offline mode dropped?
The decision was made recently, and was not made lightly as we have been looking for ways to satisfy everyone. We announced shortly after we concluded that it wasn’t possible to create an offline mode without unacceptably compromising the game.

Offline-only support was a requested feature during the Kickstarter – why was it dropped?
Back during the Kickstarter, we were clear about the vision, to make a phenomenal new sequel to Elite in an online world, which we believe we are about to deliver. At the time we believed we could also offer a good single player experience, and base an acceptable offline-only experience off that. As development has progressed, it has become clear that this last assumption is not the case.

Why wait so long to announce this?
In retrospect we should have shared the fact that we were struggling with this aspect with the community, but we were still trying to find a solution. As features were implemented, for the best results we chose to prioritise delivery of the online single and multiplayer experiences, with a view to providing the offline version later in development. We had to make a decision for the good of the game, and that is what we did.

What would you lose in offline mode?
We have developed a multi-player game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all player’s behaviour. This is what the game is about. Without this it would not be the rich gaming experience that we will deliver, and would be a great disappointment to all players.

Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty. We could write a separate mission system to allow a limited series of fixed missions, but that would still not be a compelling game, and is just the first step in the mountain of work that would be required.

Do you now consider Elite: Dangerous to be an MMO?
Technically, it has always been. There are already over 100,000 people playing in the same world. We believe that always-online entertainment is already a reality for the majority. We are delivering a truly huge game using the best technology and designed to stand the test of time, played for many years to come and still be relevant.

What do you say to people who backed Elite with an offline experience in mind?
Many of the conversations we have had during development focussed on backers wanting to play the game without the downside of online – griefing especially – ie a single player experience. We considered this to be the main issue and focussed on making sure we had a great single player offering. We have also ensured that the solo play mode has a minimal network requirement(about 10 kbps).

Are you confident the servers will be stable come launch day?
Yes, as confident as we can be, because we have been testing our servers throughout the development process, and continue to do so. Our servers are the same ones that Amazon uses, and can (and have) scaled up quickly to deal with demand when needed.

What is Frontier's plan for when the servers shut down?
We do not plan to shut the servers down, but understand it is a reasonable question. We are at the beginning of the game not the end and are focused on creating a game that we hope will be played for many years in the future. We do plan to take regular archives of the game and the servers, to preserve the game for the future.

Could the server code be released publicly some day when the servers are shut down?
Yes. This is something we would do if for whatever reason we cannot keep the game going.

Will offline mode ever be implemented? Why not create a second "offline galaxy" with different secrets than the online one?
It is not out of the question we will create a cut-down game that is offline only, but this is not currently in our plan. It would still be a big undertaking to do well.

Will you give people refunds?
We have started responding to requests where there is a clear outcome:
- Those who have pre-ordered an Elite: Dangerous release version from our online store and have therefore not yet played the game are eligible for a refund.
- Those who have already been playing the game online in the Alpha and/or Beta phases, regardless of whether they backed the project via Kickstarter or purchased access to Alpha and/or Beta through our online store, are not eligible for a refund.

We want to make sure we treat each person's situation with the thoroughness it deserves, and have contacted each of them to ask that they bear with us over the next few working days if their circumstances do not fit either criteria above as we look into individual requests.

Is offline mode an impossible problem, or just unfeasible?
It is a creative decision, not wanting to produce an empty game. It is technically possible, but it would be a largely separate game development.

Why not delay the decisions and put extra resources on this after the release?
We will review the decision after release, but our priority is moving the game forwards for the great majority of players, and are wary of producing a sub-standard game.

Was this because offline players are less likely to get involved in microtransactions? Is this just about the money?
No. We have been clear and consistent. This is about the game experience. I have always been against ‘pay to win’ – in a game like Elite: Dangerous there are a great many opportunities we could have taken already that would have amounted to ‘pay to win’ but we have chosen not to.

This whole issue comes down to what the vision is of the game we are making, and whether people trust us to make the right decisions. We made this decision with heavy hearts but for the right reasons.

David Braben"

To which I will add Ian Bell was missing from the lineup for First Encounters - and we all know what happened to that release. Someone has to do the math and think in a logical not conceptual fashion and above all deliver on a promise made on time and to cost counterweighting the Jobs personality with a Woz who actually got the job done.

Ian Bell was missing from the lineup for First Encounters - and we all know what happened to that release. Someone has to do the math and think in a logical not conceptual fashion and above all deliver on a promise made on time and to cost counterweighting the Jobs personality with a Woz who actually got the job done.

Newsletter 50 has been released early today in which we have a huge section with David Braben on why he dropped Offline Solo mode at the last minuite, to which I am with Scaryjim, it is our choice not Brabens whever we wish to join the online universe which is all DLC and can be closed or blocked at a moments notice and I will not be joining it or buying a 'game' which may as well be EVE.

Sorry for this duplicate, I originally posted on the main page and the script would not post

I wish he'd stop saying things like this:

Quote:

---

We have developed a multi-player game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all player’s behaviour. This is what the game is about. Without this it would not be the rich gaming experience that we will deliver, and would be a great disappointment to all players.

Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty. We could write a separate mission system to allow a limited series of fixed missions, but that would still not be a compelling game, and is just the first step in the mountain of work that would be required.

---

He's still telling me what I'm allowed to like about games. Without other players deciding the story of the universe, it would be a great disappointment to me? No. A mission system allowing a series of fixed missions would not be a compelling game? So the original Elite wasn't compelling? Every other offline game isn't compelling?

Seriously David, say "I like the way the online play is working out so I've decided to put all our resources into that and drop the offline mode". Don't say "We looked at an offline mode but you wouldn't like that game, so I'm saving you from yourselves by not giving you it, because I am the arbiter of game experience". The justification is just sad and annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

I wish he'd stop saying things like this:

Quote:

---

We have developed a multi-player game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all player’s behaviour. This is what the game is about. Without this it would not be the rich gaming experience that we will deliver, and would be a great disappointment to all players.

Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty. We could write a separate mission system to allow a limited series of fixed missions, but that would still not be a compelling game, and is just the first step in the mountain of work that would be required.

---

He's still telling me what I'm allowed to like about games. Without other players deciding the story of the universe, it would be a great disappointment to me? No. A mission system allowing a series of fixed missions would not be a compelling game? So the original Elite wasn't compelling? Every other offline game isn't compelling?

Seriously David, say "I like the way the online play is working out so I've decided to put all our resources into that and drop the offline mode". Don't say "We looked at an offline mode but you wouldn't like that game, so I'm saving you from yourselves by not giving you it, because I am the arbiter of game experience". The justification is just sad and annoying.

---

I don't think he's quite saying that.
From my understanding of it, it's more of an evolving universe, there's no fixed story line, but every system will have events, which are triggered by the player base actions (not individual players but by the combined actions of all the players) it may even be indirect, ie a planet might have a hidden "prosperity" value, so if enough players trade with it's stations in a 24hour period it raises the "prosperity" value, once the value hits a certain level that might trigger some event eg a new station or a station upgrade. a single player could never move enough cargo alone to trigger the event but the total player trades could.

Again I can see the reason for it, it'll create a universe that feels more alive, things will be going on with out you as an individual effecting it.
Think about something like skyrim, there's all these locations with events at them, but they only trigger when you the player goes to them, the world revolves around the player but it doesn't feel alive.
The other way to go is the way he did in Frontier: Elite II (I'm not sure about first encounter) where events are on a timer, ie at this date this happens, this can make the universe feel more alive but at the same time very static.

I don't think they need to "write a separate mission system" for an offline world, just change the weight of the player action, treat everything a player does as done by 100 people or a thousand, however much is needed to influence event triggers.
Yes it'll still feel a bit empty as events will only happen around the individual player so not a fully living evolving world, but I don't think people would mind too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

He's still telling me what I'm allowed to like about games.

---

To be precise, he's telling us what the predictions are based on the player base as a whole.
In short, they can't please everyone so they're focussing on the biggest number they can please.

I don't get the comparisons with the original version of the game, particularly in terms of missions, I only remember playing two missions in the game, one of them awarded the player with military grade shields and the other awarded a cloaking device iirc. If they did that now I would see that as a very shallow gaming experience, as a 14 year old with little gaming experience back in 1984 that didn't bother me, it most certainly would bother me now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

I don't think he's quite saying that.
From my understanding of it, it's more of an evolving universe, there's no fixed story line, but every system will have events, which are triggered by the player base actions (not individual players but by the combined actions of all the players) it may even be indirect, ie a planet might have a hidden "prosperity" value, so if enough players trade with it's stations in a 24hour period it raises the "prosperity" value, once the value hits a certain level that might trigger some event eg a new station or a station upgrade. a single player could never move enough cargo alone to trigger the event but the total player trades could.

Again I can see the reason for it, it'll create a universe that feels more alive, things will be going on with out you as an individual effecting it.
Think about something like skyrim, there's all these locations with events at them, but they only trigger when you the player goes to them, the world revolves around the player but it doesn't feel alive.
The other way to go is the way he did in Frontier: Elite II (I'm not sure about first encounter) where events are on a timer, ie at this date this happens, this can make the universe feel more alive but at the same time very static.

I don't think they need to "write a separate mission system" for an offline world, just change the weight of the player action, treat everything a player does as done by 100 people or a thousand, however much is needed to influence event triggers.
Yes it'll still feel a bit empty as events will only happen around the individual player so not a fully living evolving world, but I don't think people would mind too much.

---

But to wait X time and X players to have enough effect to get a story line out of it? which might just be an upgrade, in which case not a proper single player story line.

Not to mention the amount of people wanting to gank you while your doing your own thing loz

It's MechWarrior all over again

I want a game where I can roam around after single player have fun with NPCs and then jump into Multiplayer when I want. E.g Freelancer post game completion was fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

To be precise, he's telling us what the predictions are based on the player base as a whole.
In short, they can't please everyone so they're focussing on the biggest number they can please.

---

Hi Taskmaster, regardless he has gone back on his Kickstarter pledge:
How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

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 9:56 AM +00:00

He did not try to please as many people as possible, this was not part of the Kickstarter he cut an essential feature out which was promised 2 years ago.

2 more import ones to watch for:

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 11:54 AM +00:00

Will the game be free to play after the initial purchase?

We do not plan to make it subscription-based. Once you have purchased the game up front, you will be able to play thereafter for no further cost. Everything in the game will be purchasable with in-game Credits, earned from trading, bounty-hunting, etc. We will probably allow the supplemental purchase of Credits with real money, for those who want to accelerate their progress through the game.

We do plan to charge for additional updates, to be available sometime after the original release. These will offer additional content, features and gameplay.

Chow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

To be precise, he's telling us what the predictions are based on the player base as a whole.
In short, they can't please everyone so they're focussing on the biggest number they can please.

---

No, he quite specifically says - rearranging his words without changing the meaning - "without an unfolding story taking account of all players' behaviour it would be a great disappointment to ALL players". I've bolded/emphasised the last bit because it's a direct quote and it's what I'm most bothered by. DB can't decide if I'd be greatly disappointed by on offline world with limited story and missions. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be, because that's exactly what Elite was like (see below). I'm sure it would be a great disappointment to some players. But not including any offline mode has clearly been a great disappointment to some of the players. And that game mode would always be optional. Just as no-one is forcing me to buy E: D if I don't like the lack of an off-line mode, no-one would be forced to play the off-line mode if they bought E: D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pob255

I don't think they need to "write a separate mission system" for an offline world, just change the weight of the player action, treat everything a player does as done by 100 people or a thousand, however much is needed to influence event triggers.

Yes it'll still feel a bit empty as events will only happen around the individual player so not a fully living evolving world, but I don't think people would mind too much.

---

tbh, I don't think they even need to do that. Classic Elite (and lets be honest, most of us wanting offline mode are fans of the older games) didn't have any of that. You flew your ship around a relatively static universe, trading goods, upgrading your ship, and shooting down NPC pirates. As far as I can see, all of those elements already exist in E: D, and could work without a server (or perhaps with a local instance of a scope-limited server). Sure you wouldn't get DB's full vision of E: D, but I reckon you could get plenty of enjoyable gameplay, particularly if you're a fan of the original Elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

I don't get the comparisons with the original version of the game, particularly in terms of missions, I only remember playing two missions in the game, one of them awarded the player with military grade shields and the other awarded a cloaking device iirc. If they did that now I would see that as a very shallow gaming experience, as a 14 year old with little gaming experience back in 1984 that didn't bother me, it most certainly would bother me now.

---

Really? 'Cause I think you'll find most people clamouring for their offline mode wouldn't care that much about missions. That was never what Elite was about. It wasn't about running missions and getting an involved story and winning the game. It was about finding interesting trade routes, turning a profit, risking the wrath of the authorities by running contraband goods, shooting down pirates - there was no great story or mission, there was just fighting and trading and trying to make your way in the universe. You don't need some grand evolving story for that: you need a ship, and a universe, and some NPCs. As I say, all that work seems to have been done already. But we can't have it because DB isn't happy with the story. Well, sorry DB, for some of us it's not about the story, and if you think it is you're not making a spiritual successor to the original Elite series....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csgohan4

in which case not a proper single player story line.

---

Depends what you consider a proper story.
Elite seems to be all about imagining your own story as you play through the physicalities of the gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csgohan4

Not to mention the amount of people wanting to gank you while your doing your own thing loz

---

I've barely even heard from players in-game, let alone seen enough to make up a gank gang. This isn't Eve - Most of the player base is older and more grown-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csgohan4

I want a game where I can roam around after single player have fun with NPCs and then jump into Multiplayer when I want. E.g Freelancer post game completion was fun

---

If you want a whole cinematic story with characters and events and all that, followed by open-world roaming, then you're more the Star Citizen type, I suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KendrickDM

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.

---

Intended.
Possible.
Offline still is very possible to achieve... it's just too much for the scope of what they believe they can deliver at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KendrickDM

he cut an essential feature out which was promised 2 years ago.

---

I really wish people would stop using words like that...
Tell me where exactly FD ever used words like 'promise' and 'guarantee' with regard to what they absolutely, definitely, 100% would deliver in the game?

Here's some more for you:

Quote:

---

We do not plan to make it subscription-based.

---

But it may end up like that if the chargable updates don't fund server maintenance.

Quote:

---

We will probably allow the supplemental purchase of Credits with real money

---

But we may just keep it F2P with in-game credits only...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be, because that's exactly what Elite was like (see below).

---

But this isn't and was never going to be Elite like it was years ago, so you're not getting something that you weren't going to get in the first place...

This was supposed to be a new, improved Elite with unfolding story, online interactivity and all that. By removing the very things this project was supposed to create, you're removing what everyone signed up for.
It's not their problem if people thought they were signing up for something else... Those people should have read the words more closely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Sure you wouldn't get DB's full vision of E: D, but I reckon you could get plenty of enjoyable gameplay, particularly if you're a fan of the original Elite.

---

People will probably petition FD for this, but it's just Elite with prettier graphics and nothing more. Certainly it would please a few fans, but it brings absolutely nothing new to the world of computer games, so in the grand scheme of things doesn't help FD's portfolio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

As I say, all that work seems to have been done already.

---

Yes - by many other games in the past 30 years.

You ever wonder why games based on the film Aliens are always so crap?
The reason is that so many other games took their inspiration from the film, that by the time an actual officially-licenced Aliens game comes along, it has nothing new to bring to the arena. All the other games have already done it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

But we can't have it because DB isn't happy with the story. Well, sorry DB, for some of us it's not about the story, and if you think it is you're not making a spiritual successor to the original Elite series....

---

I think the game creator does get to decide that part...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

By removing the very things this project was supposed to create, you're removing what everyone signed up for.

---

I think the demands for refunds and general disappointment on the backer forums refutes that point..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster

I really wish people would stop using words like that...
Tell me where exactly FD ever used words like 'promise' and 'guarantee' with regard to what they absolutely, definitely, 100% would deliver in the game?.

---

The fact that they are offering refunds for people who pre-ordered shows that they accept that they had mis-sold the product. Backing a kickstarter obviously comes with the risk that what you back and what you receive may not be the same thing, but when you buy something from a shop and the seller accepts the order you have a contractual obligation to actually deliver the product as described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbouk

The fact that they are offering refunds for people who pre-ordered shows that they accept that they had mis-sold the product. Backing a kickstarter obviously comes with the risk that what you back and what you receive may not be the same thing, but when you buy something from a shop and the seller accepts the order you have a contractual obligation to actually deliver the product as described.

---

No that doesn't say that, it shows they are being pretty good over it and are trying to avoid bad press.
It also shows how little people understand kickstarter and game development.

When you put money into a kickstarter you are NOT buying something, you are not investing in something, you are donating money to something.
In return for your money they have to try to do what they said they would, they don't have to succeed, they don't have to give you anything, they just have to try

One of the harsh realities of game development, is that there can be all sorts of ideas and concepts but due to time and difficulty constants ideas get dropped.
That doesn't mean "they lied" it means that they had the idea down on an ideas board and they thought they could do it but as the development progressed they found that they it's too complex or time consuming to fit in with other things going on in the development.
So they compromise on what can get done and what cannot.

The only real differences between years ago and now in games development is now we (the general public) have far more access to the stages of the development (but still not as much as the people directly involved)

What kickstarter has done is to allow games like this to get funding in the first place as most publishers and investors simply refused to fund a space sim game because they didn't think there was a market for it both the elite dangerous and Star Citizen kickstarters did leave quite a few people with egg on their faces.

As to "story line" currently elite dangerous doesn't look like it has one or was ever said to have one in a single player story line sense, that's fine, none of the elite games had one.
I think this is looking more like elite2 than the original elite, but without the realistic Newtonian physics, which is good because the full realistic newtonian physics, while far more accurate than the original elite model, was not good from a gameplay standing.
you had missions in elite2, they are fairly simple things and you had events although they time based (I remember that one system has an economic collapse in the first ingame month which totally wrecks the trading prices and stock levels, you could just get one profitable cargo run from there if you were quick)

In elite dangerous it's a more organic system where events are triggered by unseen stats in the background that players can effect, it's not some big over arching story, although some events may trigger other events.

Think of it more like a sim city game, when you put down more houses that triggers more jobs and more demand for services, but you're one of the people in the city and the city is run by the AI that only reacts to what the city is doing.
So if the majority of people are trying to get commercial jobs not industrial jobs, then the AI will put down more commerce to counter the demand, but now the number of commerce buildings has hit a point which triggers the AI to put down a casino, which in turn pushes crime up so it put down a police station to combat that, then has to increase the tax rate to cover the extra expense . . . etc

heres a thought - you pay top end money to back a game you want, play both alpha and beta , like what you see then suddenly they remove 1 feature you actually want? currently you get a great big **** *** from frontier - even though they technically have broken kick-starters rules (apparently)

Have a retread of my post Pob. You missed the bit where I differentiated between a product sale being a contract hence the refund, and a kickstart backing being something completely different.

What about those who pre-ordered from the Elite: Dangerous website? They aren't the same as Kickstarter donations, are they covered by contractual law?

Also, I don't understand why the "pro online only" people are getting so upset and trying to force the "anti online only" people to see the errors of their ways, or trying to force them in to believing they are wrong for being upset that a major development change (regardless of if it was suggested, promised or written in stone) has left them paying (quite a lot) for something they will no lounger be able to enjoy, for WHATEVER reason they have. They're not causing you any harm, IF Frontier refund them it will be a drop in the ocean and relieve the bad press, so why argue it so much?

Myself, it's more or a principal thing, I can't stand online only single player games. The only one I have purchased is D3 and that used to give me no end of problems. The ONLY reason why they do it is to stop piracy (ignore all that BS about the devs saying "you will have a better game online, so we're forcing you to play online"), and as usual, DRM hurts paying customers more than it does the pirates, so I am against it as much as possible.

I wanted to play E:D offline in single player mode, as I did with Frontier: Elite 2. When I pre-purchased the game it was intended to be included and I didn't see much of a reason why it wouldn't be in the final product. They have now confirmed that there will be no offline mode and it upsets me greatly to see what could be a fantastic game get ruined (IMO) by being online only. That is my choice, that is my right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

What about those who pre-ordered from the Elite: Dangerous website? They aren't the same as Kickstarter donations, are they covered by contractual law?

---

Yes, if they haven't received a product of some kind. Hence why they're the ones getting refunds (assuming they didn't play the game).

I agree with the rest of your post - it's our choice, though it's not our right - devs are free to make the games they like (more or less). It's our right not to buy them though! (And even, to be able to express our opinion of what we like - though the venue for such an expression is not unlimited)

A number of things stand out for me, here.

First, Kickstarter. As far as I'm concerned, there's no issue. A fundamental part of funding any business development, Kickstarter or not, is that developments develop. It may or may not develop entirely as expected. That's part of the risk. As, indeed, is that it never reaches a released product at all. And the earlier in its development a project is, the greater the risk of direction change or complete failure. Kickstarter is really a form of venture capital, broken down into small chunks and spread wide, and it carries the same risks.

Second, game "vision". If Braben now wants a different vision, or the same vision but differently implemented, fair enough. His game, his choice. However, my money, my choice of whether to buy or not. And now, I won't be.

What does wind me up is what looks like deceitful answers. The Q&A quoted a few posts up look to me to be artfully written to explain his decision processes, and as I said, that's fair enough. But I 100% agree with Scaryjim's stance about Braben apparently telling us gamers what we will or won't enjoy, and on two issues especially - single-player v "offline", and "in-game purchases".

On the first, for me, a single-player game is a game that has two elements, a single player (me, in my case) and pre-programmed or NPC reactions. That can be quite nuanced, if done well, but it involves NO other human reaction at all. None. It doesn't involve other players altering the 'universe", and so requires absolutely no online connection at all, to play.

What he seems to envision is a "single player" game, taking part in an ever-changing universe where change is based on other human input. This is single-player in the sense that I'm not directly interacting with other human players, but not single-player in the sense that my environment is affected by them.

My problem, and it's no leap of imagination to see it as an unusual situation, is that my gaming machine is connected to, and in fact is one of, several machines I use for business that simply ARE NOT, for security purposes, internet-connected. The reason is that my mist powerful machines are used where I need the power, and I don't need power for web browsing, email, etc. So, the two environmenrs have an air gap between them, and "never the twain shall meet". As I'm not at all interested in online gaming these days, an entirely stand-alone, offline, single-player game is what I want, what I was expecting, and what I'm now not getting. Hence, I won't be buying Elite. Which is a shame, because the Elite series is one of my all-time favourites, and I was hugely looking forward to a new generation. Oh well, life's full of disappointments.

Second, .....

Quote:

---

Q: Will the game be free to play after the initial purchase?

A: We do not plan to make it subscription-based. Once you have purchased the game up front, you will be able to play thereafter for no further cost. Everything in the game will be purchasable with in-game Credits, earned from trading, bounty-hunting, etc. We will probably allow the supplemental purchase of Credits with real money, for those who want to accelerate their progress through the game.

---

Riiiiight. Uh Huh. :rolleyes:

We "do not plan to" does not mean "will not". Read any politician's statements. I could simply be 'we intend to, and will, but we haven't YET had the meeting where we make that plan'.

And "probably" allow "those that want to" to pay to "accelerate" progress, in an environment where multiplayer play rules, and even single player games are affected by it. Sorry DB, but that totally ruins any game for me.

In summary, I'm VERY disappointed, mainly because previous statements unnecessarily raised my expectations for a single-player fully-offline mode of a new version of one of my all-time favourites. I'm feeling a bit like a puppy that's had it's favourite toy dipped in it's favourite food and had it dangled just out of it's reach for a year or two, and has now had it unceremoniously yanked away for good. That is, I'm a bit grumpy about it, at best. Then, adding insult to injury, having been salivating for two years, I'm told it's for my own good, and not what I wanted anyway. Yes, Mr Braben, it was what I bleeping wanted, and if you think the toy you're now dangling is ANY form of substitute for the favourite you just whipped away, you're delusional.

That patronising drivel turned me from merely grumpy to looking for something, or someone, to bite. Preferably, you, Braben.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

I wanted to play E:D offline in single player mode, as I did with Frontier: Elite 2. When I pre-purchased the game it was intended to be included and I didn't see much of a reason why it wouldn't be in the final product. They have now confirmed that there will be no offline mode and it upsets me greatly to see what could be a fantastic game get ruined (IMO) by being online only. That is my choice, that is my right.

---

I think I might be confused about Single player and Offline modes, I hope you will be able to clarify my thinking here, as this part of your post suggests I have misunderstood what is happening at a fundamental (emphasis on the mental not the fun part lol) level. Are you saying that by taking away the Offline mode there will be no Single player mode at all?

I have been working on the assumption that it will still be possible to play as a single player or in a private group, but I would need to be connected to the internet when I do this, so that trade, kills and even location data can be passed to and from the server while I play, much like has been happening at the moment in the Beta versions that I have been playing.

If they took away the Single player and kept groups then there is nothing to stop a player from setting up a Private Group and then never letting anyone else join it and then hey presto, a single player experience. I've played with a Private Group, which I have found to be really entertaining, it's even better with TeamSpeak running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

I think I might be confused about Single player and Offline modes, I hope you will be able to clarify my thinking here, as this part of your post suggests I have misunderstood what is happening at a fundamental (emphasis on the mental not the fun part lol) level. Are you saying that by taking away the Offline mode there will be no Single player mode at all?

---

There's a shared universe, with players actions affecting trade prices, missions, faction control etc. Your actual interaction with other players is likely handled via something a bit like instances, ie peer to peer communications allowing a number of players in the same bit of space to see each other and interact - you can set this to allow 0 interactions so that you never see other players in your bit of space. However you are still playing in their shared universe, so players actions are still affecting each other.

I can see why it's causing something of an uproar. Had they announced this earlier in the development cycle (perhaps at the release of beta 2 - they must surely have known that they were struggling with offline single player at that point?) then I feel they'd have been much better off.

On a personal level it really doesn't bother me. I'll be playing either online single player or possibly online in private groups, and this was my intention all along *but* I can see why people are feeling aggrieved about this announcement so close to the game being technically ready for release (ie gamma, out today)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

...

I have been working on the assumption that it will still be possible to play as a single player or in a private group, but I would need to be connected to the internet when I do this, so that trade, kills ...etc..

---

Exactly that, as I understand it.

What's gone is single-player OFFLINE mode. Single-player mode survives, with occasional low-bandwidth connections, to "update" the game world, in reaction to other player's actions, or developer-seeded events. So, as I understand it, the "environment" reacts to other players, affecting single-player mode, but single mode players don't interact with other real players.

Of course, for me, the issue is that an online connection is required at all.

Also, some sort of server authentication is going on, meaning if servers are ever not there, for whatever reason, then, no game. That's another non-starter for me. I will not buy a game that requires that - which means I rarely buy new-release games. Hurray for GOG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

I can see why it's causing something of an uproar. Had they announced this earlier in the development cycle (perhaps at the release of beta 2 - they must surely have known that they were struggling with offline single player at that point?) then I feel they'd have been much better off.

....

---

Braben pretty much admitted that. They apparently 'hoped' to be able to get it in, but couldn't without compromises THEY deem unacceptable. I struggle to see that, personally, having been enjoying games, including Elite, for decades that didn't require a world evolving from other player's actions.

This is why I'm sceptical that the stated reason for dropping single-player offline mode is the real, and whole, story, as opposed to a rational PR excuse. If you're going to leverage "accelerating progress" through in-game credit-buying, it's hard to do with an offline mode.

And with that kind of system, it's CRITICALLY important where progress without constantly buying in-game items/upgrades. Some games are vurtually impossible to progress beyond a given point with doing so. Well, fair enough, I guess, for a game that's free, or next to free.

But, for me, it's buying a pig in a poke. You've no idea at all what the game will cost, in total, to complete, and if (as I often do) you reinstall and replay a couple of years later, from scratch, you get to pay all over again. Nuts to that idea.

So, I don't mind paying a decent price, even £40-£50, for a really good game I really want, but having paid it, I absolutely insist on not making ANY further payments to play-complete the game, as is, whether it's right now, or in ten years time. Also, not being reliant on authentication servers that may no longer exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

.... *but* I can see why people are feeling aggrieved about this announcement so close to the game being technically ready for release ....

---

Exactly. Carefully nurtured expectations have been dashed.

i dont really mind not having a signal player mode. plus this is the first time ive seen this game and its costing £50 and its not even going to be out for another year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopes390

i dont really mind not having a signal player mode. plus this is the first time ive seen this game and its costing £50 and its not even going to be out for another year.

---

The expected release date is 16th December, that's about 3 weeks, so it's a bit closer than another year. ;)

Re Taskmaster: Contracts, I take money from you and 'promise' to develop a game for you, for that what has happened under the kickstarter rules changing or not delivering the Game in any way stated is a breach of contract: "Projects must be honest and clearly presented.

Our community is built on trust and communication. Projects can’t mislead people or misrepresent facts, and creators should be candid about what they plan to accomplish" kickstarter

Contract's are implied by the acts of the parties or Implied by laws are lawfull, which would also include loose contracts, which Ian Braben would have incurred promoting his kickstarter project via the videos.

The original accomplishment goals listed on the kickstarter fundraiser are the barest minimum his development team are required to achieve and the single player experience without connection to the Galaxy server is part of an Implied Contract because it was listed in the kickstarter campaign I posted for you, it is under US law, kickstarter is based in Brooklyn US, read lifes smallprint. It may not be enforceable, no-one may care, or he may pay back those who kick up a fuss, but he has went back on pledges given.

There may be big cracking excuses for not completing the game development, Battlecruiser 3000 AD had lots too, I am sure you can generate lots more for Braben.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

Also, I don't understand why the "pro online only" people are getting so upset and trying to force the "anti online only" people to see the errors of their ways, or trying to force them in to believing they are wrong for being upset that a major development change (regardless of if it was suggested, promised or written in stone) has left them paying (quite a lot) for something they will no lounger be able to enjoy, for WHATEVER reason they have.

---

I'm not so much trying to change people's perspectives, as just discussing what they think they are entitled to in the first place.

With anything donated to Kickstarter or subsequent mechanics, that money is donated in the same way you would donate to a charity. You're entitled to nothing for it, aside from the potential to get what is stated in the spec but is still subject to change.

Pre-orders are somewhat different, as that is an actual contract of sale. If the description of the goods no longer matches, then you may be liable for a refund (which could end up requiring a third party to adjudicate, such as Trading Standards or a court).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KendrickDM

Re Taskmaster: Contracts, I take money from you and 'promise' to develop a game for you, for that what has happened

---

And that is what is happening. They are developing a game.
You donated money. That is a write-off, as far as anything is concerned. There is no actual contract there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KendrickDM

Under the kickstarter rules changing or not delivering the Game in any way stated is a breach of contract: "Projects must be honest and clearly presented.
Our community is built on trust and communication. Projects can’t mislead people or misrepresent facts, and creators should be candid about what they plan to accomplish"

---

What they plan.
So if David Braben died half-way through and FD were no longer able to make the game, would they still be liable? What if they all died in a freak gardening accident?
Things happen that may or may not affect development. Failure to deliver and the possibility of things having to change is just as equally covered and FD will have been very careful to avoid breaching the T&Cs of Kickstarter.
Any terms such as these being laid down in advance will factor into any lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

What he seems to envision is a "single player" game, taking part in an ever-changing universe where change is based on other human input. This is single-player in the sense that I'm not directly interacting with other human players, but not single-player in the sense that my environment is affected by them.

---

I think the idea was that certain events would kick off when triggered. For SP, that would mean they'd be scripted. For online, it would be triggered by players doing something. The evolving online universe is easier to plan in and probably cheaper to have players drive it than Devs - You could scripts all the possible events in, but that's a lot of work and likely the reason why he's saying it'd now mean two separate games... That's my reckoning, anyway.

Not saying it helps people get what they were expecting, regardless of what was stated in the initial brief, but hoping that it helps find some insight as to the exact reasons for it no longer happening... in lieu of FD providing an exact and detailed explanation themselves, which is something they DO need to provide!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Riiiiight. Uh Huh. :rolleyes:

.....

And "probably" allow "those that want to" to pay to "accelerate" progress, in an environment where multiplayer play rules, and even single player games are affected by it. Sorry DB, but that totally ruins any game for me.

---

Pay-to-win. Hadn't spotted this. In my opinion, this is the single-biggest factor in determining the result and future of any online game. Ultimately this breaks any online game, not because getting players to spend money is a bad thing but because it's usually done in an uneven way that artificially divides the player base. Either everyone should have to spend money and in a regulated and even fashion or no-one should.

Elite might not be a game where one 'wins' in the traditional sense, but anyone who has played an MMO for any moderate time knows the impact of real world money on game outcome, and although at first it often looks like non or low paying gamers can still have a good time, two things usually happen. The developers find it hard to resist the pull of more money and start developing things which will simply make more money resulting in an unfriendly world for non/low payers, and also, as the game starts to saturate with real world finance the gap between non/low pay players and higher paying players becomes obvious and unworkable.

Essentially it comes down to virtual economies and I've never seen an 'open' system where this has been done well. Even if Braben manages to pull it off, as Saracen has said, it should be made very explicit what sort of financial investment will be required or exactly how this will work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galant

Even if Braben manages to pull it off, as Saracen has said, it should be made very explicit what sort of financial investment will be required or exactly how this will work.

---

Having played this for quite a while now, I really don't think purchasable Credits will impact the community that much. It *will* shorten the individual's game and reduce/eliminate the purpose of most money-making activities such as mining and trading, which to me seems important as Elite is more of a space trading game than an outright combat one.

But even if you're planning to misbehave - The amount of money it would take to buy the Credits to kit you and your griefer-gang with fully tooled-up Anacondas, the amount of effort it would take to go round the galaxy and find all this and then the amount of co-ordination it would take to find players to grief in a 400 billion system arena just doesn't seem worth it... especially when a Competent-ranked pilot in a poxy little tooled-up Eagle, such as myself, can (by the very skin of his teeth) take down an Anaconda single-handedly, your end result would probably be somewhat anti-climactic.

Star Citizen are doing the exact same thing, incidentally.
I personally don't believe in it, but it's what they're doing to bump up the server maintenance funds and hopefully keep these things going a bit longer than the usual big-title MMOs.