Originally posted by Ket_Viliano Tempest in a virtual, galactic sized teapot, that's what this is.Get internet. Scream for it, sue for it, harass your political representatives till they hunt you down or run from you.95% of the compliantants are going on about "when the servers shut down", the rest work on oil rigs, or are sufficiently far from civilization that they have a reason to want an offline game.Seriously, why make a game in this day and age and make it offline? Online is what the technology has to offer now, so, use it.
It doesn't have to be about an internet connection. People wanted their own universe, where 1000s of other people didn't have a massive influence on it - and they were told they would have it, people pledged specifically for this feature.
What A slap in the face to all those that wanted offline more than online and from my visit to their forums there were MANY. David Braben should be ashamed of the way this is being handled.
He pulled a classic bait and switch and there is no arguing it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Perramas This is one of the reasons why I say you should wait and not rush out to buy this game at release.
E:D is not really the type of mmo that is going to be "super-popular" anyways that requires "wait and see".
It is not a game of a toon walking around collecting gears and doing quests, ie. common and easy to understand.
I think it is either you are going to like it or dislike it right away. Not everyone likes space sims (especially siming at the level that E:D is doing). Just like flight sims and mech sims, you either like it or dislike the genre as a whole to start with.
It is not like Star Citizen where it is a space opera game and people may like operas if they try it.
In another words, E:D is math and physics. SC is art.
E:D is not an MMO, it puzzles me why there's even a section about it on mmo sites. It's like considering GTA online an MMO, equally retarded.
It's just an "ONLINE VERSION" of Elite and Elite:Frontier from the 80s and the 90s respectively, where some of the procedural stuff that powered those games is actually replaced by real players' actions. That's all. Niche game for the 30-40 and older that were there when Braben gave us those gems. NOTHING ELSE.
There's no paradise, there's no trouble: for a "reboot of a milestone in gaming history", it delivers.
If you look for a "star citizen alternative that actually has a close release date and has been fully playable for many months", E:D is def not for you and never was intended to be - regardless of the inclusion/removal of an offline mode that is so 1990 and not 2014.
In a real massively multiplayer online game like EVE you can have hundreds to thousands of players working together or fighting each other on your screen. In ED you can have a max of thirty-two, that is not very massive.
Why are people who wanted a single player game coming to an MMO site to complain?
Thats like me going to Rockstar forums and complaining GTA is not an MMO.
And do you people honestly think they tried to mislead you? I find that rather naive and basically ignorant. Why would they intentionally want to alienate fans of their game?? Just for shits and giggles? Really? They had to swallow a good bit of pride just in admitting they were unable to do what they intended. It just wasn't going to work, and since this is an indie game, wasting resources trying to make it work, would only frustrate more people who are waiting to play this game.
Now I can agree that if you paid money, expecting a single player experience you should be compensated. But the absolute paranoia of some people towards game developers, that they are the spawn of satan or something, is frankly alarming to me.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by BoneserinoWhy are people who wanted a single player game coming to an MMO site to complain?Thats like me going to Rockstar forums and complaining GTA is not an MMO.And do you people honestly think they tried to mislead you? I find that rather naive and basically ignorant. Why would they intentionally want to alienate fans of their game?? Just for shits and giggles? Really? They had to swallow a good bit of pride just in admitting they were unable to do what they intended. It just wasn't going to work, and since this is an indie game, wasting resources trying to make it work, would only frustrate more people who are waiting to play this game.Now I can agree that if you paid money, expecting a single player experience you should be compensated. But the absolute paranoia of some people towards game developers, that they are the spawn of satan or something, is frankly alarming to me.
In case you were not aware this site now covers single player games.
It is not about being mislead so much as they new about having to cut offline mode BUT not saying anything and letting people buy into the beta and then 1 month from "release" cutting out anyone that helped them test the game from a refund. Stuff happens and they made a decision to cut out offline that is fine what is not so fine is cutting out those that had planned to play this game as a single player game.
I have been visiting their forums for a good long time now and it is quite surprising how many of their backers in that time mentioned not playing the game as a mmo but rather as a single player game so the decision to cut those that "helped test the game", cause you know alpha/beta, IMHO is more about not wanting to give the money back and shite move.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
In case you were not aware this site now covers single player games.
It is not about being mislead so much as they new about having to cut offline mode BUT not saying anything and letting people buy into the beta and then 1 month from "release" cutting out anyone that helped them test the game from a refund. Stuff happens and they made a decision to cut out offline that is fine what is not so fine is cutting out those that had planned to play this game as a single player game.
I have been visiting their forums for a good long time now and it is quite surprising how many of their backers in that time mentioned not playing the game as a mmo but rather as a single player game so the decision to cut those that "helped test the game", cause you know alpha/beta, IMHO is more about not wanting to give the money back and shite move.
Hmm is that because we talk about single player games on occasion? Because I don't really see a long list of single player games on this site. And the name of the site is a bit misleading. But I will accept what you say.
I don't entirely disagree. But the real issue here is do they have to give the money back? Pretty much the answer to that is no. Is it a shite move? Probably in a way yes. But they did try. And that I think is worth something here. Remember you are donating money in hope that a game will be made. It is not guaranteed that a game will be made. That is the fact that many of you are overlooking here.
If you look at that Seldon Crisis kickstarter, many people called BS on that one. And that was the choice you had here too. People wanted to believe it could be done. In Seldon they said forget it.
Nowhere does it say that if you donate money, we have to give it back if you are unhappy with what we create. You donate money and hope the end result is to your satisfaction. If not well, sorry.
If you can't accept the risk then why are you donating? Bottom line.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I dont care about the offline mode...everyone has internet access....and no one was bitching when diablo 3 came out..it also required internet to runn.
E:D fucked up..because they said in last min..that they would not have the Offline mode...and that is a game changer
Even as a promised feature - offline mode was of least importance to me.
Offline folks are not MMO players.
Yep.
Complaining of no offline mode on a mmo site is pointless.
If you ask me all games should have online only mode.
Im not relying on any offline games my self but a few months back our fiber cable got torn apart when people were digging due to a water leak.
You do not really know how much you need it until its gone, and having zero games you can play offline when you have no internet/TV or anything is kind of a bummer.
Even as a promised feature - offline mode was of least importance to me.
Offline folks are not MMO players.
Yep.
Complaining of no offline mode on a mmo site is pointless.
If you ask me all games should have online only mode.
Im not relying on any offline games my self but a few months back our fiber cable got torn apart when people were digging due to a water leak.
You do not really know how much you need it until its gone, and having zero games you can play offline when you have no internet/TV or anything is kind of a bummer.
You have no single player games?
Hell I have about 50 that I will never finish. Let me know if you want to borrow one.
Thats almost as bad as having no internet. Oh and better buy a generator too, just in case you have no electricity.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I wonder if you guys that bash the game so much have even played it... You threw $75+ in a game you wasn't sure about, now you're hurt or you are just flaming for the sake of it ? Because imo they are delivering what was promised in their website/videos.
They wont deliver offline mode, thats true. The game ain't feature heavy, maybe lacking a bit of sand in the box, but by no means you can say this game ain't well built and fun.
The flyight mechanics are GOOD, the game WORKS, its core features are there. Graphics are nice and it runs smooth.
The trading, the exploring, hell even just practicing your flight maneuvers is great and challenging.
We can't have good things can we ? Not if you were listened.
In case you were not aware this site now covers single player games.It is not about being mislead so much as they new about having to cut offline mode BUT not saying anything and letting people buy into the beta and then 1 month from "release" cutting out anyone that helped them test the game from a refund. Stuff happens and they made a decision to cut out offline that is fine what is not so fine is cutting out those that had planned to play this game as a single player game.I have been visiting their forums for a good long time now and it is quite surprising how many of their backers in that time mentioned not playing the game as a mmo but rather as a single player game so the decision to cut those that "helped test the game", cause you know alpha/beta, IMHO is more about not wanting to give the money back and shite move.
Hmm is that because we talk about single player games on occasion? Because I don't really see a long list of single player games on this site. And the name of the site is a bit misleading. But I will accept what you say.I don't entirely disagree. But the real issue here is do they have to give the money back? Pretty much the answer to that is no. Is it a shite move? Probably in a way yes. But they did try. And that I think is worth something here. Remember you are donating money in hope that a game will be made. It is not guaranteed that a game will be made. That is the fact that many of you are overlooking here.If you look at that Seldon Crisis kickstarter, many people called BS on that one. And that was the choice you had here too. People wanted to believe it could be done. In Seldon they said forget it.Nowhere does it say that if you donate money, we have to give it back if you are unhappy with what we create. You donate money and hope the end result is to your satisfaction. If not well, sorry.If you can't accept the risk then why are you donating? Bottom line.
I would like to clear up a few things, you seem to be under the impression that "I want a refund". That is not the case I bought into beta just a couple weeks ago.
The refund problem is that the game being sold (when I bought the game a couple weeks ago) was in beta, not kickstarter, and was suppose to be having an offline mode. Now this changes not much for me as I planned on playing it "online" BUT I had been frequenting the forum for a long time before this and even David Braben was assuring people on redit the game would be playable with no internet connection and there was a surprising amount of people wanting this.
I found this kind of strange but realize many people want this and they were assured this would be possible past kick starter, throughout alpha and all the way through beta up until this announcement.
Dunno but this just seems wrong to me and seems contrary to what was "advertised". I have no problem with them saying yada yada we tried and decided to focus on online only but then they could have in good faith said bah we will allow refunds cause we also assured people offline would happen.
Hell if you read newsletter #50 they even admit to have been "struggling" with offline and that they should have been more open about it or "shared" is the word they use, yet they kept on saying OH yes we will have an offline...so don't be afraid to give me your money and come help test the game.
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.
Bottom line the only people that were donating was those that did so during the kickstarter the rest simple bought into alpha or beta.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I dont care about the offline mode...everyone has internet access....and no one was bitching when diablo 3 came out..it also required internet to runn.
E:D fucked up..because they said in last min..that they would not have the Offline mode...and that is a game changer
Ummm... NO NOT everyone has internet. As stated above even here in Germany (not exactly 3rd world) only 75 - 80% are online and more rural areas still don't have DSL, but have to rely on ISDN, or satellite downlink and analog/ISDN uplink. Not very usable for internet games. Companies don't invest in those areas for they fear not enough ROI.
And YES at least around here there was a lot heat about D3 needing internet connection for single player mode. Many people refrained form buying and in my surroundings it wasn't taken for granted to have to be connected to the internet for single player mode, just as DRM-connection servers are not accepted by everyone...
So fine you do not care, others don't care some want to play everything online, but there are also people who prefer their own experience. As much as I love MMORPGs and playing with others, I don't need everything to be online and want my share of single player.
I dont care about the offline mode...everyone has internet access....and no one was bitching when diablo 3 came out..it also required internet to runn.
E:D fucked up..because they said in last min..that they would not have the Offline mode...and that is a game changer
Ummm... NO NOT everyone has internet. As stated above even here in Germany (not exactly 3rd world) only 75 - 80% are online and more rural areas still don't have DSL, but have to rely on ISDN, or satellite downlink and analog/ISDN uplink. Not very usable for internet games. Companies don't invest in those areas for they fear not enough ROI.
And YES at least around here there was a lot heat about D3 needing internet connection for single player mode. Many people refrained form buying and in my surroundings it wasn't taken for granted to have to be connected to the internet for single player mode, just as DRM-connection servers are not accepted by everyone...
So fine you do not care, others don't care some want to play everything online, but there are also people who prefer their own experience. As much as I love MMORPGs and playing with others, I don't need everything to be online and want my share of single player.
Read the newsletters and you'll see that you'll be ok playing single player online mode. They stated that in this mode you won't need a high speed internet. The online data usage will be minimal.
"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."
There isnt a single player mode. There is multiplayer and solo multiplayer. In solo mode you will never see another player and they cant blow up your ship. They do affect the markets by driving the price down on resources that you may want to mine and sell. They also drive up the price or completely buy out the ships and equipment you may want to buy for yourself. They explore the universe finding the secrets you may want to find for yourself. This isnt a bad thin if you want a dynamic universe that changes from the behaviors of other players but if you want a true single player game this isnt the game for you.
Originally posted by Perramas In a real massively multiplayer online game like EVE you can have hundreds to thousands of players working together or fighting each other on your screen. In ED you can have a max of thirty-two, that is not very massive.
LOL by that standard GW2 is not an MMO, WOW is not an MMO, most MMO's are not MMO's.
Everyone in ED is in the same universe effecting the same game. The only difference between ED and EVE with respect to being an MMO is that ED has a smaller player cap per instance, ED can not do "time dilation" in order to get around server and players connection lag. Heck most MMO's can't get around that and have to limit the number of players in any given instance/area, many MMO's just do it by having different shards.
Originally posted by Perramas In a real massively multiplayer online game like EVE you can have hundreds to thousands of players working together or fighting each other on your screen. In ED you can have a max of thirty-two, that is not very massive.
LOL by that standard GW2 is not an MMO, WOW is not an MMO, most MMO's are not MMO's.
Everyone in ED is in the same universe effecting the same game. The only difference between ED and EVE with respect to being an MMO is that ED has a smaller player cap per instance, ED can not do "time dilation" in order to get around server and players connection lag. Heck most MMO's can't get around that and have to limit the number of players in any given instance/area, many MMO's just do it by having different shards.
Are any of those games hosted on someones home PC? ED is a P2P game not an MMO and is hosted on someones PC. You will be matched up with people close to you or those with good internet connections. Sorry Australians you are going to have a bad time with this game if you think it is a true MMO.
Why are people who wanted a single player game coming to an MMO site to complain?
Thats like me going to Rockstar forums and complaining GTA is not an MMO.
And do you people honestly think they tried to mislead you? I find that rather naive and basically ignorant. Why would they intentionally want to alienate fans of their game?? Just for shits and giggles? Really? They had to swallow a good bit of pride just in admitting they were unable to do what they intended. It just wasn't going to work, and since this is an indie game, wasting resources trying to make it work, would only frustrate more people who are waiting to play this game.
Now I can agree that if you paid money, expecting a single player experience you should be compensated. But the absolute paranoia of some people towards game developers, that they are the spawn of satan or something, is frankly alarming to me.
Exactly, they get hurt more by this than they profit from it, as bad PR is a longer standing issue than getting a few extra bucks. Especially for a game designed to be played long term, such as a space sim.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Perramas In a real massively multiplayer online game like EVE you can have hundreds to thousands of players working together or fighting each other on your screen. In ED you can have a max of thirty-two, that is not very massive.
LOL by that standard GW2 is not an MMO, WOW is not an MMO, most MMO's are not MMO's.
Everyone in ED is in the same universe effecting the same game. The only difference between ED and EVE with respect to being an MMO is that ED has a smaller player cap per instance, ED can not do "time dilation" in order to get around server and players connection lag. Heck most MMO's can't get around that and have to limit the number of players in any given instance/area, many MMO's just do it by having different shards.
Are any of those games hosted on someones home PC? ED is a P2P game not an MMO and is hosted on someones PC. You will be matched up with people close to you or those with good internet connections. Sorry Australians you are going to have a bad time with this game if you think it is a true MMO.
LOL so you are trying to change the definition of MMO. Ok so you have no point.
I love how your post contradicts your self, with P2P and matching local Australians will have a better time as the servers are no in iceland or were ever.
Every single player is playing in the same game world (persistent game world) at the same time . Sorry but you don't get to change the definition of what an MMO is.
I dont care about the offline mode...everyone has internet access....and no one was bitching when diablo 3 came out..it also required internet to runn.
E:D fucked up..because they said in last min..that they would not have the Offline mode...and that is a game changer
Ummm... NO NOT everyone has internet. As stated above even here in Germany (not exactly 3rd world) only 75 - 80% are online and more rural areas still don't have DSL, but have to rely on ISDN, or satellite downlink and analog/ISDN uplink. Not very usable for internet games. Companies don't invest in those areas for they fear not enough ROI.
And YES at least around here there was a lot heat about D3 needing internet connection for single player mode. Many people refrained form buying and in my surroundings it wasn't taken for granted to have to be connected to the internet for single player mode, just as DRM-connection servers are not accepted by everyone...
So fine you do not care, others don't care some want to play everything online, but there are also people who prefer their own experience. As much as I love MMORPGs and playing with others, I don't need everything to be online and want my share of single player.
Braben said in his Q&A that the single player will run fine at speeds as low as 10Kb/sec as the game only needs to exchange small information (mostly trading) with the server so NO, no one needs DSL for it.
This is a PR screwup for the E:D crew. They had a sizeable body of people who wanted offline play, and had that reasonable expectation due to developer promise, and previous iterations of the earlier games. Some of those folks are likely to be suspicious as to exactly when the decision that offline couldn't be done was made. If it was six months ago, it might have been smarter to start seeding the waters with the possibility of not delivering. They'd also have been wiser to just have a simple refund process. Unless they really are hurting for cash. They are already backpedalling on their refund stance. Would've been better to just do it from the get go.
As for the 'Just get good internet' types, you just look foolish. Especially in the US, internet infrastructure is not that hot everywhere. If you've got it good, you are lucky. Certainly here, where we've got a major player in US internet service, we recently went through six months of balky internet, with erratic connections and large blocks of disconnected times. Despite frequent visits by techs, it took an ironclad threat of switching (and a letter to the BBB) to get the problem resolved. Though it is amazing how much better things got from our original provider when Google Fiber moved into the area.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Originally posted by Kyleran They need to "launch" this year to increase revenues, though if there ever was a poster child for a game to delay their launch to get some key features in, this one is it.
They'll shoot themselves in the foot with this and likely won't ever recover.
How many times have we seen this?
It's endless.
It's endless because we're at a stage where games that meet the potential of modern PCs take more budget that most developers have to develop them with. This is why gaming was becoming so bland, as big publishers with the money called all the shots. Every game had to be like the last successful one or it wouldn't get funded. If it didn't make it's money back within a month or two it would get cut.
The gaming industry is changing though. It had to because the old model is unsustainable. Now we've got Kickstarter projects, early access programmes and constant development cycles (as pioneered by MMOs), many of which are open, playable and unfinished. Elite will be far from the first game to release with a long-term development plan ahead of it, and it won't be the last either.
Sure, the release isn't going to be a bed of roses, but Frontier themselves have said that internally release is just another stage in development. The gaming press isn't necessarily going to see it that way, and neither are many, many gamers, but development will continue, re-reviews will come in and the game will grow to meet its potential. This is going to happen.
For all the arguments about a poor release killing the game outright, that's not going to happen. Frontier have at least two other development contracts on the go (less than half their staff are working on ED), and they have revenue streams from many completed games that are still paying out royalties. Unlike publisher funded games, and those made by one-game companies, ED doesn't have to be self-funding right off the bat. Obviously, given that Frontier see release as another stage of development, this is factored into their plans for Elite post-release lifetime.
My advice to anyone who's thinking about buying Elite on the 16th December and wanting a fully completed game experience, is to give it 6 months or so before buying in.
For anyone who's interested in getting in early and isn't so hung up on it being a work-in-progress, get it on the 16th. As it stands the basic game is pretty strong if you're a self-motivated gamer with a love of open world, no holding games. There are already several big player groups who are playing together in beta and beyond, and there's a community that's on-board with how the game is going. Just remember that development is ongoing.
My advice to anyone who's thinking about buying Elite on the 16th December and wanting a fully completed game experience, is to give it 6 months or so before buying in.
For anyone who's interested in getting in early and isn't so hung up on it being a work-in-progress, get it on the 16th. As it stands the basic game is pretty strong if you're a self-motivated gamer with a love of open world, no holding games. There are already several big player groups who are playing together in beta and beyond, and there's a community that's on-board with how the game is going. Just remember that development is ongoing.
Good advice.
I do think people need to temper their expectations, remember most MMOs take 4-6 years of development. Elite has been in development for only 2 years, if you go in knowing that it's only fair to make some allowances.
Originally they wanted an extended gamma, think Minecraft, but for whatever reason the dates have been pulled forwards. It doesn't change the state of the game so I'm choosing to view release as gamma for content's sake.
Comments
It doesn't have to be about an internet connection. People wanted their own universe, where 1000s of other people didn't have a massive influence on it - and they were told they would have it, people pledged specifically for this feature.
What A slap in the face to all those that wanted offline more than online and from my visit to their forums there were MANY. David Braben should be ashamed of the way this is being handled.
He pulled a classic bait and switch and there is no arguing it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
E:D is not really the type of mmo that is going to be "super-popular" anyways that requires "wait and see".
It is not a game of a toon walking around collecting gears and doing quests, ie. common and easy to understand.
I think it is either you are going to like it or dislike it right away. Not everyone likes space sims (especially siming at the level that E:D is doing). Just like flight sims and mech sims, you either like it or dislike the genre as a whole to start with.
It is not like Star Citizen where it is a space opera game and people may like operas if they try it.
In another words, E:D is math and physics. SC is art.
E:D is not an MMO, it puzzles me why there's even a section about it on mmo sites. It's like considering GTA online an MMO, equally retarded.
It's just an "ONLINE VERSION" of Elite and Elite:Frontier from the 80s and the 90s respectively, where some of the procedural stuff that powered those games is actually replaced by real players' actions. That's all. Niche game for the 30-40 and older that were there when Braben gave us those gems. NOTHING ELSE.
There's no paradise, there's no trouble: for a "reboot of a milestone in gaming history", it delivers.If you look for a "star citizen alternative that actually has a close release date and has been fully playable for many months", E:D is def not for you and never was intended to be - regardless of the inclusion/removal of an offline mode that is so 1990 and not 2014.
Isn't that kind of what an MMO is about? Tools/means to have players replace what otherwise a computer would do (i.e. make a world alive)?
FUncom putting the FU in fun since 1993.
Why are people who wanted a single player game coming to an MMO site to complain?
Thats like me going to Rockstar forums and complaining GTA is not an MMO.
And do you people honestly think they tried to mislead you? I find that rather naive and basically ignorant. Why would they intentionally want to alienate fans of their game?? Just for shits and giggles? Really? They had to swallow a good bit of pride just in admitting they were unable to do what they intended. It just wasn't going to work, and since this is an indie game, wasting resources trying to make it work, would only frustrate more people who are waiting to play this game.
Now I can agree that if you paid money, expecting a single player experience you should be compensated. But the absolute paranoia of some people towards game developers, that they are the spawn of satan or something, is frankly alarming to me.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
In case you were not aware this site now covers single player games.It is not about being mislead so much as they new about having to cut offline mode BUT not saying anything and letting people buy into the beta and then 1 month from "release" cutting out anyone that helped them test the game from a refund. Stuff happens and they made a decision to cut out offline that is fine what is not so fine is cutting out those that had planned to play this game as a single player game.
I have been visiting their forums for a good long time now and it is quite surprising how many of their backers in that time mentioned not playing the game as a mmo but rather as a single player game so the decision to cut those that "helped test the game", cause you know alpha/beta, IMHO is more about not wanting to give the money back and shite move.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Hmm is that because we talk about single player games on occasion? Because I don't really see a long list of single player games on this site. And the name of the site is a bit misleading. But I will accept what you say.
I don't entirely disagree. But the real issue here is do they have to give the money back? Pretty much the answer to that is no. Is it a shite move? Probably in a way yes. But they did try. And that I think is worth something here. Remember you are donating money in hope that a game will be made. It is not guaranteed that a game will be made. That is the fact that many of you are overlooking here.
If you look at that Seldon Crisis kickstarter, many people called BS on that one. And that was the choice you had here too. People wanted to believe it could be done. In Seldon they said forget it.
Nowhere does it say that if you donate money, we have to give it back if you are unhappy with what we create. You donate money and hope the end result is to your satisfaction. If not well, sorry.
If you can't accept the risk then why are you donating? Bottom line.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I dont care about the offline mode...everyone has internet access....and no one was bitching when diablo 3 came out..it also required internet to runn.
E:D fucked up..because they said in last min..that they would not have the Offline mode...and that is a game changer
mmorpg junkie since 1999
Im not relying on any offline games my self but a few months back our fiber cable got torn apart when people were digging due to a water leak.
You do not really know how much you need it until its gone, and having zero games you can play offline when you have no internet/TV or anything is kind of a bummer.
You have no single player games?
Hell I have about 50 that I will never finish. Let me know if you want to borrow one.
Thats almost as bad as having no internet. Oh and better buy a generator too, just in case you have no electricity.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Oh, a "this game sux" thread near release.
I wonder if you guys that bash the game so much have even played it... You threw $75+ in a game you wasn't sure about, now you're hurt or you are just flaming for the sake of it ? Because imo they are delivering what was promised in their website/videos.
They wont deliver offline mode, thats true. The game ain't feature heavy, maybe lacking a bit of sand in the box, but by no means you can say this game ain't well built and fun.
The flyight mechanics are GOOD, the game WORKS, its core features are there. Graphics are nice and it runs smooth.
The trading, the exploring, hell even just practicing your flight maneuvers is great and challenging.
We can't have good things can we ? Not if you were listened.
I would like to clear up a few things, you seem to be under the impression that "I want a refund". That is not the case I bought into beta just a couple weeks ago.The refund problem is that the game being sold (when I bought the game a couple weeks ago) was in beta, not kickstarter, and was suppose to be having an offline mode. Now this changes not much for me as I planned on playing it "online" BUT I had been frequenting the forum for a long time before this and even David Braben was assuring people on redit the game would be playable with no internet connection and there was a surprising amount of people wanting this.
I found this kind of strange but realize many people want this and they were assured this would be possible past kick starter, throughout alpha and all the way through beta up until this announcement.
Dunno but this just seems wrong to me and seems contrary to what was "advertised". I have no problem with them saying yada yada we tried and decided to focus on online only but then they could have in good faith said bah we will allow refunds cause we also assured people offline would happen.
Hell if you read newsletter #50 they even admit to have been "struggling" with offline and that they should have been more open about it or "shared" is the word they use, yet they kept on saying OH yes we will have an offline...so don't be afraid to give me your money and come help test the game.
Bottom line the only people that were donating was those that did so during the kickstarter the rest simple bought into alpha or beta.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Ummm... NO NOT everyone has internet. As stated above even here in Germany (not exactly 3rd world) only 75 - 80% are online and more rural areas still don't have DSL, but have to rely on ISDN, or satellite downlink and analog/ISDN uplink. Not very usable for internet games. Companies don't invest in those areas for they fear not enough ROI.
And YES at least around here there was a lot heat about D3 needing internet connection for single player mode. Many people refrained form buying and in my surroundings it wasn't taken for granted to have to be connected to the internet for single player mode, just as DRM-connection servers are not accepted by everyone...
So fine you do not care, others don't care some want to play everything online, but there are also people who prefer their own experience. As much as I love MMORPGs and playing with others, I don't need everything to be online and want my share of single player.
Read the newsletters and you'll see that you'll be ok playing single player online mode. They stated that in this mode you won't need a high speed internet. The online data usage will be minimal.
"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."
FUncom putting the FU in fun since 1993.
LOL by that standard GW2 is not an MMO, WOW is not an MMO, most MMO's are not MMO's.
Everyone in ED is in the same universe effecting the same game. The only difference between ED and EVE with respect to being an MMO is that ED has a smaller player cap per instance, ED can not do "time dilation" in order to get around server and players connection lag. Heck most MMO's can't get around that and have to limit the number of players in any given instance/area, many MMO's just do it by having different shards.
Are any of those games hosted on someones home PC? ED is a P2P game not an MMO and is hosted on someones PC. You will be matched up with people close to you or those with good internet connections. Sorry Australians you are going to have a bad time with this game if you think it is a true MMO.
FUncom putting the FU in fun since 1993.
Exactly, they get hurt more by this than they profit from it, as bad PR is a longer standing issue than getting a few extra bucks. Especially for a game designed to be played long term, such as a space sim.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
LOL so you are trying to change the definition of MMO. Ok so you have no point.
I love how your post contradicts your self, with P2P and matching local Australians will have a better time as the servers are no in iceland or were ever.
Every single player is playing in the same game world (persistent game world) at the same time . Sorry but you don't get to change the definition of what an MMO is.
Braben said in his Q&A that the single player will run fine at speeds as low as 10Kb/sec as the game only needs to exchange small information (mostly trading) with the server so NO, no one needs DSL for it.
This is a PR screwup for the E:D crew. They had a sizeable body of people who wanted offline play, and had that reasonable expectation due to developer promise, and previous iterations of the earlier games. Some of those folks are likely to be suspicious as to exactly when the decision that offline couldn't be done was made. If it was six months ago, it might have been smarter to start seeding the waters with the possibility of not delivering. They'd also have been wiser to just have a simple refund process. Unless they really are hurting for cash. They are already backpedalling on their refund stance. Would've been better to just do it from the get go.
As for the 'Just get good internet' types, you just look foolish. Especially in the US, internet infrastructure is not that hot everywhere. If you've got it good, you are lucky. Certainly here, where we've got a major player in US internet service, we recently went through six months of balky internet, with erratic connections and large blocks of disconnected times. Despite frequent visits by techs, it took an ironclad threat of switching (and a letter to the BBB) to get the problem resolved. Though it is amazing how much better things got from our original provider when Google Fiber moved into the area.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It's endless because we're at a stage where games that meet the potential of modern PCs take more budget that most developers have to develop them with. This is why gaming was becoming so bland, as big publishers with the money called all the shots. Every game had to be like the last successful one or it wouldn't get funded. If it didn't make it's money back within a month or two it would get cut.
The gaming industry is changing though. It had to because the old model is unsustainable. Now we've got Kickstarter projects, early access programmes and constant development cycles (as pioneered by MMOs), many of which are open, playable and unfinished. Elite will be far from the first game to release with a long-term development plan ahead of it, and it won't be the last either.
Sure, the release isn't going to be a bed of roses, but Frontier themselves have said that internally release is just another stage in development. The gaming press isn't necessarily going to see it that way, and neither are many, many gamers, but development will continue, re-reviews will come in and the game will grow to meet its potential. This is going to happen.
For all the arguments about a poor release killing the game outright, that's not going to happen. Frontier have at least two other development contracts on the go (less than half their staff are working on ED), and they have revenue streams from many completed games that are still paying out royalties. Unlike publisher funded games, and those made by one-game companies, ED doesn't have to be self-funding right off the bat. Obviously, given that Frontier see release as another stage of development, this is factored into their plans for Elite post-release lifetime.
My advice to anyone who's thinking about buying Elite on the 16th December and wanting a fully completed game experience, is to give it 6 months or so before buying in.
For anyone who's interested in getting in early and isn't so hung up on it being a work-in-progress, get it on the 16th. As it stands the basic game is pretty strong if you're a self-motivated gamer with a love of open world, no holding games. There are already several big player groups who are playing together in beta and beyond, and there's a community that's on-board with how the game is going. Just remember that development is ongoing.
Good advice.
I do think people need to temper their expectations, remember most MMOs take 4-6 years of development. Elite has been in development for only 2 years, if you go in knowing that it's only fair to make some allowances.
Originally they wanted an extended gamma, think Minecraft, but for whatever reason the dates have been pulled forwards. It doesn't change the state of the game so I'm choosing to view release as gamma for content's sake.