Slashdot Mirror
Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player
Robotron23 writes: The developers behind the sequel to legendary video game Elite have, to the anger and dismay of fans, dropped the offline single-player mode originally promised. The game is due for full release in under a month. With the title having raised about $1.5 million from Kickstarter, and millions more in subsequent campaigns that advertised the feature, gamers are livid. A complaints thread on the official Elite forums has swelled to 450+ pages in only three days, while refunds are being lodged in the thousands. It is down to the discretion of Frontier, the game's developer, whether to process refund requests of original backers.
Disappointing but not at all surprising.
Their focus on the online multiplayer has been pretty obvious for awhile.
They sell different colored ships and stuff - can't have people running their own multiplayer servers or cheating and give stuff like that away, not if they're trying to run a business.
This Kickstarter stuff isn't very well regulated...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sure, it sucks when projects don't meet their exact launch goals, but I don't have too much sympathy for the "backers" on Kickstarter in general.
The whole thing is clearly labeled as "crowdfunding", not "preorder". If you want to preorder a game, go to Gamestop. If you want to be a backer, i.e. basically micro funding of a startup project, go ahead and use Kickstarter, but in that case you really aren't *guaranteed* anything. There will be poorly managed Kickstarter projects that fail miserably and blow through their investment without ANY decent return/reward. And since you basically agreed to be an investor in the venture (that's why you get a "reward", not a "purchase"), do you know what you can do about that in most cases? Jack and shit.
Now go do it ANYWAY!
Its unfortunate to those affected, but features, especially those which don't form the original pitch and instead gt added on after much arguing, gnashing of teeth and sometimes carried with threats of lowering or removing pledges gets dropped due to technical reasons after more code moves server side. That's how it is...If Robotron23 is looking to further a backslash against Frontier I hope people research it further and make their own, non-biased conclusions.
I doubt it is thousands upset about losing offline component though, here are a couple more polls:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59048
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59016
Barely a thousand voted in total on that poll with close to 80% not seeking a refund. Thousands seeking a refund?
Here is a good article, but aside from the article excellent commentary:
http://www.drewwagar.com/progress-report/elite-dangerous-and-playing-offline/
I do understand the complaints made. Sometimes it feels limiting that a constant connection is required.
However, I'm just happy they are finishing the project. I have many happy memories of playing Elite in my youth. In this day and age, creating a video game is a massive and complicated project, and they seem to have succeeded. I pitched in a hundred pounds, and they're also going to release it on the Mac, which is currently my most-used platform.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
... that looked in previews like a clone of Eve: Online anyway? ;)
Or was that Star Citizen?
Both have too much money for their own good
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
It's definitely for the backers' own good that the experience be the same for all players... so just one month before release we tell them that we didn't bother to implement the single player offline component.
/s
It took a while for me to decode all that marketing speak to figure out that they were canning single player. It was a deliberate design decision they must have made months ago, and just conveniently "forgot" to tell the backers.
Was going to help fund this via kickstarter, cuz I loved this on my Amiga!!
Specifically I was wanting the offline single player mode..
But I guess I will have to continue waiting...
Why the hell does every game have to be online??? Call me anti-social but I don't like playing with others (unless I can play with their boobs). It just pisses me off that every game company has HAS to know every little thing about my gaming habits??? They make a game always require an Internet connection, but no technical reason for that except they can collect and resell the data!!! And when they can't justify the need for a Internet connection they simply drop features so there is no other way to play...
I think my days of gaming are over!!
I don't do DLC that's just a bullshite scam!!!
Oh I guess I am just too old to play games anymore :(
When I read that this was coming Out I thought sweet... Not now :(
I FEEL ENTiTLED AND MY OPiNION MATTERS BECAUSE LOUD
Well, that sucks. Elite: Dangerous was going to be a day one purchase. Now, I'll wait for reviews and maybe a steam sale.
E:D was the reason I was so interested in Occulus Rift.
Way to go, Dave.
[FUCK BETA]
Elite Dangerous is a shower.
I'm one of the backers of the Kickstarter. I am absolutely TIRED of being asked for more money for every damn thing they do.
The number of paid Alpha's, premium content, several Beta's (Beta Premium!) is unbelievable and they seem to want to make me wait until the very day of release before I get anything out of my backing unless I pay more money.
Sure, I get a "reserved Commander name" and a couple of bits of digital content but I have seen nothing of the actual game in all that time except for the occasional screenshot. They have probably made more from the Beta's than they have from the Kickstarter, and every damn newsletter is "just another $15 will get you this...".
I've totally lost any interest and regret backing but, unlike some, I'm true to my word so have written off the money I've given them so far. I've truly not expected to see the game because every preview/screenshot/update still without any access by myself but with begging all the way through it just disappoints me further. If they are milking it that early, what the hell is going to happen in-game when they want to form the economies?
I'm honestly fatigued by the requests for money, which they are still putting in every newsletter. It makes me worry that any final game is going to die from budgetary shortages the second it's release because the begging is so intense.
Meanwhile, all I have to show for backing it is a cart with one item "bought" that I can't touch for another month or so and that's all I ever had.
Honestly? I'm sick of it already. And I haven't even got to play it. Given that it was one of the largest and most successful Kickstarter projects there was, I'm a bit disgusted by how much more they seem to want in order to let me see how it plays, even in a tiny demo.
It's gonna be an over-hyped flop, isn't it? Or crash and burn in the first few months when the servers can't be kept running due to lack of budgeting. And to leave it until NOW to tell people about the lack of single-player, while you're still pasting in 4K screenshots and plugs for various books written in the Elite:Dangerous universe (that doesn't exist yet as far as I'm concerned)? I just don't care any more.
The one Kickstarter project that I really regret backing.
Another disappointed backer from the kickstarter in late 2012.
I have wasted over $500 on this game with the PROMISE that it will be offline.
Now a few days before its official launch, they drop this bombshell, and are not even responding to refund requests.
Absoulutely shattered.
Frontier, hang your heads in shame. I will NEVER purchase anything from you again.
You could say that (and in a way it's true), but technically there is no "buyer" since it's NOT a purchase, it's financial backing of a project.
Right, but when grown-ups accept investment in their company/fund/whatever, they normally publish various information about their strategy so investors know what they are backing. If the officers/fund manager/whoever then deviate significantly from that strategy, investors typically have some redress in law and regulatory action may be involved.
It's a simple analogy to look at backing a Kickstarter campaign that states certain things about their project goals in the same way. Whatever the legal position, in practice a deliberate and unnecessary deviation from what backers were explicitly told they were supporting seems likely to end only one of three ways:
1. The project team relent to save their reputation/project and issue refunds to those who feel it's not a project they would have backed under the new conditions.
2. Kickstarter themselves step in to protect their own reputation, somehow forcing the project to issue refunds. This issue could be an existential threat for the crowd-sourcing business model, after all.
3. Kickstarter and/or the project admins argue that a bait and switch is OK under Kickstarter rules and say something weaselly about legal terms and the deal not being what everyone thought it was. If too many backers take a different view and pursue this with their card providers claiming fraud, good luck doing any further business after the resulting chargebacks.
It's not clear to me how significant and widespread the objections to this actually are, but if it's a real problem, I don't really see any way it ends well for either the project or Kickstarter if they don't proactively do something to make things right with backers who thought they were being ripped off.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Beware of gamers developing games. Too often you find them preferring their own game play style, ramping up difficulty, no bones thrown to casual players, and so forth. Then it gets defended as "by real games for real gamers" or something like that.
I get a sneaky suspicion this might fall into that category. They've got a "vision" of what they want, and damn the paying customers who say differently.
I mean isn't this part of the whole reason kickstarter games are popular, because they're supposed to listen to customers which is the opposite of what the big name game publishers do?
It's a shame people don't get their facts straight before the start misquoting this such as "...lodged in the thousands...".
This is completely unsubstantiated and get the impression this is a thinly veiled attempt to spread FUD.
Is that the game that I can buy for 60 EUR and then have the privilege of paying another 12.50 EUR to get a "cutting-edge" freighter ship, and another 12.50 to get a 'viper chrome'? Why would I do that??
There's already a single player mode, for days when you don't feel like interacting with other players, and a 'friends only' mode where you only interact with people on your friends list.
Your ships and money are shared between modes. If they added an off-line mode too, then they'd face complaints like "I've just spent 60 hours in off-line mode working my way up to an Asp, and now you're telling me that I can't use it when I play with my friends??!? W.T.H. You guys suck!"
Hello /.
I've purchased the game plus it's early access, and I've had a lot of fun with it. I've played games like X3 and earlier so I know what a decent single player game consists of.
Frankly, I think it's about time we received a game that was even of better quality that was just online, we have great single player space games, we really do. However, I always wished they were online, that those ships out there were other players I could comm with or do things with my friends. Elite dangerous, has brought me that. Eve online is a fantastic game, but I always wanted a first person cockpit, full docking procedures, aiming, the whole I'm a spaceship in space experience, not the mmo style.
Elite brought it. They also added new features, and patched them quickly to make the game stable, playable, look fantastic, fun, and immersive. Sitting in the cockpit with voice attack, astra, engaging in combat yelling divert power to weapons! Full impulse! and shooting down npcs or players is great fun.
If they focused on a single player offline mode, I think the game would really suffer, we need that open ended focus where players get the drive the story and history of the game by their actions, not by a predefined script.
I want to see alliances of mercenaries that you know to avoid or that will steal cargo from you. You'll eventually see player factions I'm sure that you recognize as pirate. You get the joy of someone pulling you out of hyper drive, and fighting to stay in it. If they pull you out, you see what it is, oh crap it's system authority, do I fight or run? I kick my engines to full speed as I have a bounty on me and as soon as they scan me, they'll open fire.
I'm trying to get away and spin up my hyper drive engines, and I hear the dreaded 'Ship scan detected' Next thing I know, shots are wizzing past me, I'm under attack. Fortunately my quick reflexes allowed me to get away this time.
It's not always like that though, I've had players pull me out and open fire right away. I was in a slow cargo ship, their proximately slowed the spin up of my hyper drive, I couldn't get away, they destroyed me.
Other times, I was in a small attack ship, the eagle, and I inderdicted other players. Some got away, had enough distance to spool up and run before I could get them, others, not so lucky.
Plus all the docking is fantastic, it's actual ports, you go in the actual station, there is no state change to dock, and land in a landing port. Also even when you're waiting after you landed, and told the platform to pull you in, which it literally does and hides your ship in the station, if you want to go to the outfitting and it 's not done yet, your interface says 'please wait'. That is, your ships interface. You have several consoles, can still look around and muck with them still.
So it's quite well done to make you feel like you're in that ship and things are happening as they should with no loading trickery.
The only state changes are entering hypercruise, which with a bit of network lag you can tell it's a state change, but once in it, it feels natural, and if it's instant exiting and entering feels like it's not a state change. Also hyper jumping to other systems can tell it's a bit of a state change, but you never see a 'loading' screen.
Let this small detail go. It's one of the few games that will really benefit from online play.
Does Frontier even have a choise but do refund? Single player was part of contract that backer bough, you can go back later and change contract to your liking. What you can do is negotiate with customers on other end of contract.
Personally i see this as one more server locking that will render game useless when servers go down. Unless of course you can host your own server, preferably open source server...
Kickstarter is best described as a donation.
Even donations come with obligations though. If I donate to a charity to support science education in country A and they use the money instead to purchase needles for drug addicts in country B then you could sue them to get you money back since they are using it for a significantly different purpose even though both might be considered good causes.
Whether the a single player game is sufficiently different from the delivered MMO game is something for the courts to decide if it ever gets that far. However what is very shabby about this whole thing is that the announcement has come only 1 month before the release. Given their description of how essential the online servers are to the game it seems highly likely than they have known about this for a very long time and have only just come clean.
It's also a real shame. Part of the beauty of the previous games was that they made such a detailed, massive open sandbox which you could explore and admire the intelligence that went into crafting the procedural generation. Now you are going to be sharing the galaxy with immature, adolescent school kids and any unusual features you will ascribe to a human moderator putting them there. It's going to have more similarity to Eve Online than Elite.
I too am a backer, and one of the DDF members (If you backed I think it was 500 USD or more, you had access to the Design Decision Forum, where the game design was discussed).
Regarding the loss of single player - as an experienced software developer, I thought there were trying to write two complete separate products in one game - but the handling has been an example of what not to do. I would imagine they were trying to keep the option in for as long as possible, only to be forced into facing the truth when it came to release.
My bone with it all though, and the reason I quit the forum more than a year ago and will not be buying ir playing the game, is simply that it has, in my humble opinion, been botched. It's like a Hollywood summer blockbuster - tons of flashy graphics, but the plot, acting, dialogue... are all appalling. Style, not substance. The game has ended up as thing of shreds and patches, where a thousand fairly superficial decisions have been taken about gameplay, *but where there is no consistency or coherence in those decisions*.
I advocated defining a set of basic rules and then extrapolating how things must be, from those - e.g. do shields only stop energy weapons, or do they stop shells, too? is communiction between ships instant? can you follow other ships through wormholes? do ships have fuel? and then if you don't like the results, you have to modify the basic rules and then see what all the consequences are. This is the only way to achieve a consistent universe.
What has happened is that ll these questions have been answered one by one, without thought about how the answers might make or not make sense with regard to earlier or future questions, *and so the game makes no sense*. It is massively internally inconsistent. Classics in any genre *make sense*. You can believe in them. You can' believe in Elite:Dangerous. But it has nice graphics and it's Elite. Summer blockbuster, all that could have been...
You got all excited about this new funding opportunity. The ability to get funded directly by your customers rather then going through the big scary publishers.
And it could have worked except you crapped all over your customers the instant it became possible. You told them what they wanted to hear until the checks cleared... and then you betrayed them.
Again and again.
All these crowd funding systems need to have some sort of refund clause built into them.
We're very happy to fund you guys... but if you intentionally fuck us over then you deserve to have the money pulled.
Obviously you can't afford that happening. You already spent it. I get that. That is in fact the fucking point. You make your commitments and you damn well follow through. Alternatively, just bail on the whole project and never get funded again. Either way, this sort of behavior needs to be a third rail. It needs to mean financial ruin or career suicide.
The first rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.
The second rule of crowd funding is DO NOT fuck over your sponsors.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I do not want to synchronize anything with any server which might or might not make it for some years until it is shut down. This is DRM nothing more. I bought this game to play on my own not bothered by any other player... Kickstarter should be able to penalize companies which are not willing to fulfill their promises.
... people funding AAA kickstarters know nothing about AAA development costs. I knew Planetary annihilation was taking everyone for a ride because to make a real RTS you need 10 million minimum (thats whta supreme commander cost). Trying to do a full fledged RTS on 2.5 million isn't going to cut it. Same can be said for elite dangerous. Braben is taking his fans for a ride because he wants to ride the money into an MMO to make $. He damn well knows a AAA game costs a huge amount to create.
The problem is crowdfunding so far has only been able to get enough funding to get back to maybe mid 90's level games like Shadowrun, Wasteland 2 and Pillars of eternity. Both wasteland 2 and shadowrun ended up being short on content . Shadowrun and Faster than light have only been the few real kickstarter successes in terms of game quality. There are some others that have flown below the radar but I can't name them at the moment.
I'm looking forward to Next car game (Now wreckfest) and Star citizen. But I'm not holding my breath of star citizen.
If you are one of the 17% that posted you want a refund because Frontier tried and failed to make their online game work offline, then good luck. The guy who put ã5,000 in the KickStarter (Liqua) says while disappointed, he's NOT going to ask for a refund, and "The game is awesome - a good solid foundation. FD just need some PR lessons (and I in some self control)" if you didn't already have the game (as most complainers are saying) then you backed to the tune of less than ã50 - I don't think that gives you a seat on the board. Frontier have been honest. They could just have easily waited until after December 16th to not hurt sales, but they put their hand up and said "we just cannot do it". Most posters, which really annoy me are saying "I was going to buy this, now I'm not + rage comment". So no interest or commitment to Elite: Dangerous, just want to rage at someone. Nice. It's a shame that the offline option isn't open, but to anyone who had followed the game development you'd have to have been wearing a blindfold to see this announcement as a shock.
Do people really think they have enough resources on their home computers to be able to handle the level of information going to be made available from full release? From my point of view, having a small playable demo of a game for single player purposes is nice and dandy but it seems that there's some technical understanding that's not being comprehended by the users who share their disappointment of an expectation of a fully playable offline mode.
You donate upon promise but the one getting the donation can change or even drop the term. There is no contract, nothing. Which is why I never do kickstarter.
I backed early, probably the second day of the Kickstarter before people asked for an offline mode, and I feel truly bad for those who were actually reliant on it or deemed it an essential mode, but the game itself is really solid and fun so far. Honestly, there is nothing like it out there right now which allows you to control a spaceship from the 3D cockpit in a realistically scaled 1:1 galaxy with realistically scaled planets and even space stations.
People voted for this believe it or not as a way to avoid subscription fees, selling cash for credits or even ships.
Elite Dangerous does not sell ships.
You can buy a purely cosmetic paint jobs. The 'viper chrome' is a limited edition, so more expensive. It does not offer any benefits, so there is no need at all to feel left out if you choose not to buy those.
The price for pre-order is 40 Euro, the 20 extra is if aren't patient enough to wait for release and want to join the beta.
So, pretty decent all around considering you get to play an MMO without monthly fees.
Do you know whether it is pay-to-win (i.e. in-app purchases have a significant effect on gameplay) or mainly cosmetic (buying a paint job on your ship)?
If I pay real money for a game (>20 EUR) I expect it to be playable without subscription fees, microtransactions etc. For free or almost free games, I can understand either subscription OR microtransactions, but certainly not both...
Whilst I was replying to another person I realised they seem to be currently delivering on the original proposal set out before any offline compoment was added during the campaign, or even when an additional ten ships were going to be added. Original proposal did not mention offline at all, and it was to ship with 15 ships, so far they are close to this number. We may not see all 25 (10 more raised as a stretch goal) on the 16th, but sometime after, so I think they've so far done pretty well.
A story about offline single-playing in "Elite: Dangerous Dumps"? No, wait.
Dangerous dumps have offlined a single player in "Elite" (wherever that is)? That can't be right.
It is elite to dump dangerous offline play--argglgalwhatever?
That's some serious headlineze going on here.
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
(disclaimer: this turned into a general letting-off-of-steam rather than a direct focussed reply to your specific points)
What does it matter if there is cheating in singleplayer mode?
I backed this game to the tune of around a hundred quid on the basis that there would be a singleplayer mode; I bought Beta and Lifetime Expansion Pass. And there still will be a singleplayer mode, it's just that it will require an internet connection. That's fine for as long as the game remains profitable enough to keep the servers running (and for as long as I don't move back to the sticks or join the armed forces; the latter is unlikely, the former is possible).
The problem is that it was funded as a one-off-purchase game, not a subscription game, and therefore I'm having trouble identifying how they will keep the money coming in to fund the servers past the initial, say, 18-month sales peak. As I've mooted elsewhere, Frontier need to commit to releasing the server modules as freeware on or before the day the servers inevitably become unprofitable. I appreciate the servers are cloud-based with multiple interdependencies, but it's not like the Elite fanbase is short of technical skills - the community WILL be able to manage it, even with near-zero documentation.
As far as the "it was always obvious it was going to be an MMO" goes, I disagree strongly.
I backed this because it was Elite, and not because it was Eve Online Plus. If I'd wanted an Elite MMO, Eve Online already exists.
I have neither the patience to deal with the minority but significant number of griefers, spammers and general idiots that proliferate in online games, nor do I have the time required to grind my skills up to the level required to participate fairly against those who can put 20+ hours a week into the game. I used to be one of those 20+ hour/week gamers (what I don't know about TFC:Badlands isn't worth knowing), they're mostly lovely people, but now I have kids and a mortgage, which was my choice, and a choice which informed which Kickstarter games I backed and which I didn't.
I backed a singleplayer game with up-front paid lifetime pass.
Now it looks like "lifetime" means the lifetime of the game, and with that lifetime is looking pretty short.
(And while I'm having a moan, have I just forgotten how steep the original's learning curve was, or are all the available control systems in E:D really, really hard, or is this just another symptom of me not being a 20+H/week gamer any more?)
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Don't worry, I'm guessing the cracked version will have an offline mode. Not that I'd bother. If they don't want me then I don't want them.
Kudos to all the cracking teams out there. Cracks used to be dangerous, virus filled crud. Now they're better than the original product! I have more faith in a random crack than a game installer from any known company.
X Rebirth was pretty much panned by everyone who was a fan of the previous X games. Consequently, it's the only one of the X games that I haven't bought at least once.
Just to think that a company would change there mind on what to leave out and put in..... in a game....
You realise that if the backers had been a company (eg Electronic Arts) and Frontier had changed the product without consulting them, they would be in trouble, right? Either the Kickstarter backers have preordered a product (in which case "changing there [sic] mind" nullifies the contract of sale) or they are investors who have control over what their investment is used for.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
A difference here is that Frontiers Developments are Europe based and bound by the consumer protections there. Things that cannot be signed away or over ridden by what KS saying in their terms.
They made a number of unambiguous statements that the mode would be available and these are almost certainly binding. Such as this 1 week before the KS closed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...
That is strong grounds for a refund and they really do not want to get the consumer protection regulators involved, or generate bad will for release day reviews. The KS may have funded development, but additional sales are needed to keep the servers running and review score will decide if that happens since it is not planned to be a subscription game.
The game looks great but I will still be surprised if they are in the very small % of server based games that still have their servers online a couple of years later.
Full Disclosure: I'm a beta premium backer of the game
You can only purchase ships with in game currency. At least, as of right now that's the way the game works.
Most of the early backers, as well as kickstarter supporters, will get a free second ship when the game launches, but it's an Eagle, a bit of a sidegrade to the default Sidewinder. The only other advantages for people who paid early access is the ability to play the game sooner, which means more practice before things launch, and a better insurance rate, which reduces the amount of in game currency to replace your ship after it blows up.
There are micro-transactions for paint jobs for the ships you fly in the game, but it's purely cosmetic.
Learn something new.
I will just keep playing the X series. X Rebirth is actually shaping up nicely after a year of bug fixing. And 100% offline single player.
Cosmetic only, there are no plans to introduce any pay-to-win mechanism, all material transactions will be with in game currency only which cannot be bought for real money either.
1) I don't even argue with their choice as far as content/connectivity. My personal skepticism about Star Citizen is that they're asserting that they can & will do/be everything for everyone under the sun. Ceaseless mission-creep is Chris Robert's nemesis (from his historical projects) and it seems to be the issue there. The Elite team has always been more focused; for them to say "no, we're going to do X, not Y or Z" I don't have a beef with that. Of course, the issue becomes when they take money based on promises of features that are then not delivered. At the very least, one would hope people would have the sense to stop donating, as well as at least an investigation of fraud (although that's going to be nearly impossible to prove: it's fine to try and fail, it's illegal to take the money and not 'reasonably' try).
2) for the people complaining about having given money in Kickstarter: sorry, but you're an idiot - nobody can save you from that. Kickstarter has been, from the very beginning, a no strings attached deal. It's a wish-fulfillment site, connecting people who donate freely to people who (one would hope) try to accomplish goals with that money. It's not an investment, it's not a pre-purchase, it's not even a donation (I don't think you can write off KS $?). You gave the money freely, and if it evaporates, well, that's that. I've been trying to tell people for YEARS that there's nothing there but the word of the people to whom you're donating, and that the system is extremely vulnerable to scammers. All the trust in the world doesn't make more honest people.
-Styopa
IAAL
There are several layers of consumer protection. First, fraud. Second, false advertising. And, third, just charge it back. The last line of this article is defeatist bullshit. Practice the Network principle: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Agreed. How anyone could pan the process of this kickstarted is beyond me. Consistent deliveries on time, every time. They have not once asked for more money.
For a few people this (no fully offline mode) will be disappointing, and with how frontier has progressed so far I can only expect that they will be allowed to have at least the purchase price of the final game refunded (they probably wont refund the beta access part, as they have already 'consumed' that).
Slashdot should come with a warning, "Ere be Trolls", cause I keep reading a lot of stuff that seems just made up about the ED kickstarter.
Sorry for those people who were expecting offline single player, but for any game with online capabilities, an offline mode is becoming rarer and rarer. The reason is that it's what gamers want. The flawless online experience that we demand doesn't allow for an offline mode. Diablo 3 did it too, and for exactly the same reasons. People whined and moaned and then Diablo 3 became a huge hit.
If you'd bothered to research it properly, you'd have noticed that the number of posters in the threadnaught number under a thousand. Of those posters, many are unhappy with the decision but are in fact undecided about whether they want to apply for a refund or not.
Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good clickbait story, eh? Tosser.
Do you know whether it is pay-to-win (i.e. in-app purchases have a significant effect on gameplay) or mainly cosmetic (buying a paint job on your ship)?
If I pay real money for a game (>20 EUR) I expect it to be playable without subscription fees, microtransactions etc. For free or almost free games, I can understand either subscription OR microtransactions, but certainly not both...
cosmetic. FD have released no plans (yet?) for IRL monies translating to in-game upgrades. only paintjobs.
Troll.
They NEVER request money.
The fact that the game has in game purchases, which most games do now.
There is no lack of single player, it's still there, it currently needs an online connection, but single player still exists (slightly improved with dynamic content too boot).
They have been the best kickstarter project I've ever backed.
I was keeping an eye on this for the single player aspect. That seems to have vanished along with my desire to put any money in to this game. I loved the old version years ago and was looking forward to this being released. Oh well, maybe if they realize that life isn't just multi-player and put single player back in I would consider buying the game again.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
...pounds for the full game with updates.
I loved the Elite Frontier game, I spent SO many hours of my youth on chasing pirates, mail service for the military, mining asteroids, smuggling goods, trading and looking for interesting ads at their version of the "internet", that game was SO ahead of its time.
But I refuse to pay 99 pounds for ANY game, even if it's the super-duper-full-updates-for-life-mega-peta-giga-edition of the century. Glad I didn't plunge into the investment. Dodged a bullet there...
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Build it yourself, build it to the backers specification or fuck off bitchez
I was a kickstarter on Star Citizen, but missed Elite (wasn't paying attention to Kickstarter at the time). Star Citizen has worn me out with some of the same complaints I am seeing here on Elite.
The last week or so, I've brought up the Elite webiste many times and sat on the edge of buying. I kept arguing with myself. Well: argument over. I will not be pre-ordering. I'm too big a fan of offline mode. There are too many flags.
Which means, if this game is well reviewed by players, I'll buy it in a year when it goes on sale. I just see too much EA-style tactics here. Whatever my complaints with Wasteland 2, they never pulled any of what appears to be happening here.
The best way to avoid subscription fees is to sell the fucking game and let me play it without needing to provide further services.
See also: Offline single player.
I appreciate this is a difficult proposition, especially in large scale first person space games. If only it had been possible in the X series, Freelancer, Privateer, Evothingy or, I don't know, fucking Elite. In 22k.
In case you haven't guessed, they've lost a sale here.
Or they are donors contributing money to a project they hoped to see happen.
I personally avoid Production-type Kickstarters [and] focus on Distribution-type campaigns
"We've produced a PC game, which you can buy now at example.com. But we think it would be an even better experience on a non-PC platform. Please help us fund a port of our game to $console." This isn't exactly the same as "production" because you can see almost "the exact form of the game" by playing the PC version with an Xbox 360 controller or by watching the video of the PC version. But it isn't exactly the same as "distribution" either because some engineering is still needed for the port. Under your criteria, would porting a completed application to another platform be closer to "distribution" or "production"?
ED is currently pay to Glam.
There is no RMT or in game credits. you earn what you fly.
It amazes me how this has gotten blown so out of proportion. Offline mode was never "promised", it was part of the vision for Elite: Dangerous, that's all. The kickstarter was to raise money for the development of a SIM/game. Anyone who backed it for just one proposed feature, has only themselves to blame for being so short sighted.
Offline mode didn't work out at present, they tried to do it and found it wasn't working out to fit with their vision, so our finally had to be dropped, at least for now. I'm sure there will be more work put into it in the future, and perhaps we'll have a single player version somewhere down the line. In the meantime, it's a great game in beta, and should prove to be great after release.
What a bunch of chumps. They should have followed the smart people and put their money into Star Citizen, which totally isn't a cult or Ponzi scheme.
What it says on the tin.
What we need are smart contracts!
You donate your money, and they remove the previously promised turkey and replace it with Spam on December 23. Would these same morons argue that Spam was better for you at that point?
They promised turkey. They delivered SPAM brand turkey. I fail to see the problem, unless you're trying to say they delivered the pork variety.
Kickstarter project creators are obliged to deliver on their promises. This leaves four options, deliver, refund, renegotiate or declare bankrupcy. Frontier Developments is a long-running company and can't afford to declare bankrupcy over a single project. Renegotiating with every dissatisfied customer/backer would be a long, slow process, so the offer of a refund is the best option. If they don't immediately have the cash to support it, then they'll have to defer payment until the game is on sale and further copies sold.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Trust is not a black and white affair.
If I give a £10 note to a stranger to hold for me while I tie my shoes, and they are gone when I finish and look back, I would blame myself for being so trusting. Off course stealing is bad and ideally I should have to etc. but at the end of the day the upset and betrayed feelings are the result of a foolish decision.
Live and learn.
If they had an offline mode, then the whole game would be in the hands of those to whom it is delivered- they would have a good (not just a service). If you want to say "We have X players, 40% of whom play in a persistent world and we profit from steadily, the others of whom might at some point in the future, but do not now" that is one thing, but if you can say "We have X players, 100% of whom depend on our servers to run", in the SECOND case, you are offering more stuff than can be monetized when EA buys you out- you represent more value to EA because you are holding your whole playerbase hostage to your servers.
Personally, i'am not fussed there will be no offline mode (i didnt buy it for that).
My concern is that the online multiplayer code is a complete mess and feels like an alpha prototype. The game is being released in December, the netcode is at least 4+ months behind being anywhere stable.
The funny thing is, the "solo" mode which is offline to peers runs really well. Hardly any bugs. But already i'am noticing the forced connection to the master server is being overloaded, causing the "solo" mode to disconnect.
I love the game, i really do. But there are so many gamebreaking bugs and lazy mistakes in the game from the devs, most of which are caused by the network code in online play.
Frontier need to get their act together. Hopefully they can deliver a quality experience to prove that the offline mode isnt required. At the moment, Solo play is the only way to play this game stable.
These harsh DRM systems are the main reason i will never buy another game (that isnt a FPS) BF series mostly other then that i have zero interest in any kind of public online play
If i cant play alone or just setup a LAN or run my own server (for me and my brother)
Then im not buying it
Game developers who dont listen to their intended customer base
Are why websites like the piratebay flourish
I dont know about you but my living room 3 Pcs in a 19 rack 2 HD monitors and a 48in tv has cost me around $6000 im not spending $80 a game if the developers wont listen to the customers
Ironically im a game modder
I also BETA test alot of games (getting you name out there gets you emails without even sighning up)
And i develop aircraft for a opensource aircraft simulator
So when i tell you im not gonna pay for this game or that game
But would rather risk torrenting it then getting ripped of or defrauded by the lying game developers
Then shit is really getting out of hand
Maybe if you didnt make shitty games and stoped lying to me i might actually pay for them
Why even support a company that does this? They reneged. At this point you don't want them to "add it back in", you want a refund. 100%, full-stop, refund. They have showed their colors, why would you even want their product at this point under any circumstances no matter what backtracking they do.
Hate to see Offline mode scrapped. Especially with the network issues they've been having.
I feel sorry for the Programmers and Program Managers that worked on the game. Right or wrong, any job these people interview with, any competent interviewer will look online to see whatever details that they can regarding projects these individuals have worked on. The company appears to be publicly throwing its Programmers and Program managers directly under the bus, blaming a fairly serious mismatch between promised features and deliverables squarely on these folks and telling the public that the company didn't really know that top line requirements weren't being met until the project was within a few weeks of completion. That the software architecture they developed is incompatible with (public) requirements. Were I the one hiring, I'd ask some very hard questions before I'd hire anyone that was responsible for these aspects of the game. They might not even get an interview.
Not trying to claim he is not whining, because he is.
I'd just like to laugh at everyone who pay money to be alpha tester or beta tester. Alpha testers have at some point been paid to test the damn game. Ok, that does mean actually testing the game, not just playing and fooling around. Betas used to be kinda short, where at present you don't even have a clear line between beta and release, seems like some things are at beta forever. Anyways, it's a no thank you for me, and a lot of others I imagine. If I pay for a game it has to be finished. It's ok by me that some people want to pay to help development, I just find it silly and laughable. People I so desperate for a game they actually pay to play some unfinished turd. And this is not ever the worst of it. The worst is people why cry when their character or favourite thing gets reset, removed, or otherwise changed. It's a goddamn alpha. That means it should be in development and things changing, if you don't like it, then, for godssakes, do as I do and don't sign up for that.
Beware of gamers developing games. Too often you find them preferring their own game play style, ramping up difficulty, no bones thrown to casual players, and so forth. Then it gets defended as "by real games for real gamers" or something like that.
I get a sneaky suspicion this might fall into that category. They've got a "vision" of what they want, and damn the paying customers who say differently.
I mean isn't this part of the whole reason kickstarter games are popular, because they're supposed to listen to customers which is the opposite of what the big name game publishers do?
Listening to customer leads to nanny games like WoW. IF they have a vison, good for them, I really hope they stick to it. Test, tweak, sure, but abandon your vision or perma death MMORPG because people complain? Don't. You'll end up like everyone else, a game with nothing original. The big publishers have loads of people just "listening to customers". What does that result in? Endless remakes of the same game with tiny tweaks. Here, grab the 15th version of NHL Hockey! It's the same as 4 last versions, and almost the same as 4 before that, luckily technological development has enforced some chenge from the four before that.
I'm not sure a game titled Elite: Dangerous Dumps would be particularly good, even with a offline single player option.
Yeah, this was a deal killer for me. I want to be able to run my own game on my terms, now I won't be able to do that. It's really sad too.
X Rebirth was pretty much panned by everyone who was a fan of the previous X games. Consequently, it's the only one of the X games that I haven't bought at least once.
I'm playing X-Rebirth V2.51 right now. They have fixed most of the bugs and I am having fun.
But if what you want is an FPS, this is not the game for you. It is your job to fix the economy, the devs start it off but you have to maintain it. It is not easy.
But, with that sort of "live" universe, things can happen that even the devs didn't know about.
Or you can just play the plots (plural), The update coming out in December has a third plot included, and more space.
And it sounds like the other space games are coming out in even worse shape than X-rebirth was in ! 8-P
and that's why i won't fund kickstarters for commercial companies. If they want to make profit they can front their own funds, then they can make and break promises as many as they like.
There appears to be alot of misinformation going on in this post.
There is still a single player version. You can play on your own in the universe - no griefing, trolling, scumbags. BUT you need to be on line. In fact you can choose to switch between Single Player and MMO.
ED has delivered a significant game with a fairly immersive universe.
ffs stop moaing