Thirith on 19/11/2014 at 10:58
I'm sorry, but "betrayal" sounds like so much gamer sense of entitlement. Also, the game can be played single-player, it just can't be played offline - which opens a whole other can of worms, but it is a *different* can of worms. Finally, online requirement or not, I don't see a single curent game that does what Elite: Dangerous sets out to do. E.V.E. does something pretty different.
The online requirement for a game that can be played in SP should be discussed and can be criticised, but let's criticise it for things that are actually true.
Malf on 19/11/2014 at 11:21
I've been kind of nonplussed about this. Having played the beta, I can completely understand this decision. With exploration and an active economy that is influenced by all the people playing, surely being online is a massive advantage?
And "Solo" mode means that while the universe around you will still be affected by the actions of all players, you never have to play with another person if you don't want to.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Compared to a lot of other games that have used always-online as a thinly veiled DRM scheme, it genuinely improves the core gameplay of Elite Dangerous.
I mean sure, they could probably release a version with no online connection, but next to the online one the universe would seem static and stale by comparison. In order to make it feel as dynamic, they'd probably have to code a shitload more AI governed systems, and that would just end up extending development. As it stands, they can let players be that content for them.
And hell, it allows for a lot more emergent behaviour than most "true" MMOs out there.
faetal on 19/11/2014 at 11:28
An emergent economy could be a very cool thing indeed.
DDL on 19/11/2014 at 18:31
Player-driven economies are always far far more dangerously dickish, though.
You end up with insanity like runescape's hats and shit, and in elite you just know some bunch of asshats will corner the market on furs or something (more probably, on some commodity vital for ship upgrades or whatever).
I mean, when you consider that the original elite fit on a floppy disk, and used procedural generated...ALL THE THINGS, and still managed to be incredibly playable (Oolite is basically the exact same thing with slightly better graphics, and is also incredibly playable), I'm thinking "player driven economy and dynamic events" is not an a priori requirement for enjoyment.
I think the quote was "Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty", to which I would reply: "That's fine. One serving of fundamentally empty, please."
As long as I can buy textiles in Lave and then get fucking ruined by Kraits like 5 minutes later, or (more likely) smash my ship into the side of a space station AGAIN, I'd be happy.
But no. :-/
Tony_Tarantula on 20/11/2014 at 00:40
Quote Posted by DDL
Player-driven economies are always far far more dangerously dickish, though.
You end up with insanity like runescape's hats and shit, and in elite you just know some bunch of asshats will corner the market on furs or something (more probably, on some commodity vital for ship upgrades or whatever).
Which is more or less how real economies tend to end up.
icemann on 20/11/2014 at 03:42
Procedural generation vs relying on player economies brings with it, it's own fun, since that can create diverse experiences on every play through, provide for far superior story related content that other players wont mess up / hamper etc.
Imo if players want the option it is far better of a developer to provide both, and not do the Blizzard line of thinking of only providing for those who want the multiplayer experience and completely ignoring those who don't.
You also ensure that your game will be enjoyed until the end of time and not just until the servers are switched off. Just as the original Elite is still enjoyed. If the original game had employed a similar scheme we'd not be able to play that at all nowadays.
They should at the very least, offer refunds to those who had wanted that experience.
Nedan on 22/11/2014 at 03:29
I personally was looking forward to this... it looked f'ing awesome & final product sounded amazing... on paper. But this was a really stupid move.
I swear David Braben should've seen this sh*t storm coming a mile away. And the initial refund statement made it even worse (granted they doubled back on this rather quickly). I still enjoy games like Elite, Privateer, Sid Meiers Pirates (the 1987 version & the 1993 gold edition) & others that are similar right to this very day. I like knowing that I can come back to these classics anytime I want & still enjoy them like the first time I fired them up on my old 386 PC. I'm also with DDL on this & would also ask for that
"One serving of fundamentally empty, please."The few pieces of good news to come out of this for me was that I haven't spent one red cent on this title & now I don't even have to. The offline single-player was the deal-breaker for me as that was all I was interested in. If the online requirement was like steam, in that you only needed to be online to verify the game & install, & that you could play it offline for months on end... then I'd be fine with that. At least (
http://ltheory.com/) Limit Theory still looks promising.
EvaUnit02 on 22/11/2014 at 04:15
Quote Posted by icemann
I don't see it as that unreasonable to expect singleplayer content from a game series that had that in every other game released under it. If anything it's a betrayal of sorts to longtime fans since the Spectrum / Commodore 64 days.
God forbid that game designers be ambitious and/or try to evolve existing concepts, right? From the outset this was going to a MMO, such facts were obvious from the early updates during the Kickstarter at least.
Oh and EVE's gameplay is nothing like E:D's, there is really nothing else EVE in the marketplace.
icemann on 22/11/2014 at 06:54
It was also clear from the kickstarter pitch that offline singleplayer was going to be in it, which they removed after getting the money from people who were looking for that. Hence the betrayal.
They've since offered refunds to some of the backers. And that's only for those who've never delved in the MMO side of it, which is atleast somewhat positive.
End of the day if a game has a feature on it's box / advert and then once monies are exchanged the feature that enticed the buyer is removed (making that feature null and void), then the company should offer a refund.
Thirith on 22/11/2014 at 10:36
I agree that they promised something that is now not going to be in the game, and while this is something that can happen, I do think they handled it less than ideally. I definitely agree with your point re: refunds.
However, "betrayal" smacks of silly drama, of taking this personally and looking at it as a conscious choice by the devs to swindle people out of their money. I don't see any evidence of this, and I think that the tendency to personalise everything in such terms is unhelpful. Being disappointed? Sure. Deciding not to get the game? Absolutely? Framing it in terms of personal betrayal? Get a grip, IMO.
