Like many other members I found myself a little surprised that items we have purchased on the Black Lotus Bazaar (BLB), and items unlocked on the Battle Passes (BP) can not be used without an internet connection. Members have always been able to freely build and use our DLC items and our pre-order bonuses while offline, and still can (not sure about Twitch items as I do not have them).
So I would like to politely request that this be made consistent across the board, and if we have already purchased them and/or unlocked it, please make BLB and BP them useable without an internet connection.
EDIT- @Community apologies for the tag in. But the thread will now become dormant, and I just wanted to make sure someone could see it for consideration…regardless of the outcome.
Seconded. Perhaps this has something to do with what dennis mentioned about metkemosses not being able to wear his armor as planned and when that gets addressed, this will change too.
Much obliged. Although I am doubtful that this is related to the story line. After all I do not see why Met Kamoses being unable to put his armor on would have any impact on a person being able to spray a design on their wall or floor, plant a bush or sit an ornament down on their table.
No it of course has nothing to do with the story, but dennis said there was a technical reason why they couldnt place dlc on him and maybe that had to do with the fact that if you play single player offline, he would be trying to access bp/bazaar items. He said they were working in a fix for that so perhaps its related. Just reading tea leaves on my part because he said it was a technical problem to put dlc on npcs.
I am confused. I would agree it is a technical issue and if they are working on a fix for then that is great. But I do not understand what being unable to use BP and BLB building sets and placeables around our bases has to do with Funcom being unable to change Met Kamoses outfit. Have I missed something here? I would also add for the record that I have put DLC armors on my thrall NPCs time and again, both offline and online.
So there’s that new dog headed armor, I think it was battlepass. In the devstream, dennis said that he wanted to put it on metkemoses because it was his armor, but he couldnt because there was a technical reason they couldnt put dlc/battlepass/bazaar armor on npcs. I’m just speculating that the technical reason might be that if your game went offline, perhaps the loss of connection with the current technical issue would mean that MK would appear nekkid. So maybe the fix to MK having his armor is the same fix that would enable the use of bp/bazaar items offline. Just a guess on my part.
Similar to the issue where the Khitan warriors aren’t in their signature gear? This one thinks they recall a mention that the intent was to have them showing off that new set from the Headhunter Bundle, rather than huddling in Skelos Cultist robes.
This one does hope they can and will find a way to pinion the purchased premium content privileges in a manner similar to the DLC packs rather than requiring a handshake with the live services servers on every instance of activation.
This one would appreciate it.
As do I LostBrythunian. Based on the uniform code violations we have been told of, it would come as no surprise if if a resolution is already in the works, or at the very least under deliberation. Nonetheless, I felt it best to formally put forth the request, and see just how many other members concurred.
I also doubt it’s related, seeing as this is a completely deliberate “Feature” Funcom implemented
Basically whenever you try to use anything from BP / Bazaar, an online query is made via Funcom Live Services to see if your account is “entitled” to use the item in question… if not, you get the message.
Pretty much overly-protective DRM… nothing more…
I did mention in a post in the past that I also think they should revise this decision. While the usefulness is understandable as this will prevent people from skipping updates and to some degree also further combat piracy, however the nature of it is just too aggressive imo. and it reaches a point where it’s disruptive to the game itself.
For example imagine you have a wight horse from the previous BP, you travel somewhere far in SINGLE PLAYER… and then a temporary internet outage won’t let you mount your horse and ride back… that goes beyond what is an acceptable DRM measure imo. and as I pointed out in the past… we’re talking about cosmetic items… and not nuclear launch codes… so maybe a bit of a reality-check is in order… just saying
At the very least they could change it so the list of “entitled” items gets validated once at startup and then stored in memory for the session at least minimizing the above disruptive nature of it. It still won’t solve the issue of the topic, but it’s better than nothing.
Yea, I was gonna mention that too but didn’t wanna drag out the post
Those are the moments where either the Funcom Live Services servers temporarily go down or there’s just a temporary routing problem along the way between your client and their server… Even small issues like that affect it, even thou you’re online and playing on a server.
It’s just a too aggressive system imo, not needed.
Account locking items is intended yes. Making them not usable offline was undoubtedly known as an issue but I don’t believe they intend to stop you from using them offline. If they can change that, I have no doubt they would. Why wouldn’t they?
I’m pretty sure it’s intentional… If they change it it’s going to be because of negative feedback like this that they got for it.
It’s just not something I can see as an unintentional side-effect… You either query the permissions from your server every time someone interacts with your stuff… or you build a system where it’s queried once and you use the permissions stored in memory to further validate things for the session.
I just can’t imagine this being accidental from a software development point of view.
Of course I can’t be 100% certain, but if it’s accidental then who built the system that checks permissions online every time you equip something?.. things don’t exist on their own Idk, in any case I hope they sort something out with it
Why would they intentionally deny someone the content they paid for simply because they were not online if they had a system that could allow you to? Think about what I’m asking. I’m not saying the current system is not deliberate in the sense that they had to do it this way because that’s how they validate you have a right to the content, I’m saying, if they had a way to make sure the content was locked to you, that worked within the game while offline, they would do it. If they intentionally want to make you play online to use that content and wouldn’t let you use it offline even if they could be assured you couldn’t give it away for free, what does that imply about them? You see what I’m driving at here? There is an implication in that statement that you are making.
Yes I am 100% sure that the reason this system made it to release was because the priority WAS monetization and DRM and the collateral damage it causes to gameplay was secondary. So yes, if that’s the implication you were getting from my post, then I 100% stand by it.
As for the “if they had a system…” I just described such a semi-offline system above… if their priority would’ve been to be as least disruptive to gameplay as possible then they could have simply queried the list of items you’re entitled to use ONCE on login (the same way it already requires an internet connection then to connect to your Funcom account), and simply use that list for the remainder of your gameplay session. Would it be easier to bypass with shady tools and such? Sure… but it would work just fine for 99% of the userbase.
And obviously if they’re selling online account-bound stuff via a service then they cannot make a complete offline system, which if you check my first reply here, I already admitted and I was merely saying that their online system is too aggressive and disruptive to gameplay so all I was doing is suggesting a compromise between the 2 versions…
I am aware they can’t make a fully offline system that works properly for this type of stuff… but they can certainly make an online one that doesn’t disrupt your gameplay every time their Funcom server has a 5 second internet hiccup. That’s all I meant here nothing more
I mean… that would’ve been very simple to type, it goes like this. “I agree”
Like… idk why the need for the cloak and dagger on a subject like this…
To me it seemed like you were aware of what I’m saying, but you regarded my post as an “anti-Funcom” post, even thou it wasn’t, I was merely questioning the need for such an aggressive system… so your defensiveness kicked in…
And yea, I don’t get why you bothered in this case either, not like I said something super controversial needing Funcom to be defended (in fact I’m usually the one defending them when it’s justified, however this isn’t)
Considering your playstyle, and the playstyles of other PS players I’ve met through the years, this is a necessary change.
As you know, in my situation, I have a hardwired DSL link that’s very slow but reliable. My connection on the PC isn’t an issue.
HOWEVER: on the PS I am at the whims of a well-known console issue that frequently breaks the wifi connection. It’s bad to get kicked from a server, but it’s even worse to come back into the game and not be able to access my goodies. This is one of the reasons CE is gathering dust in my downstairs game room: we have not yet hardwired that section of our home. Couple this with StarLink’s very very tenuous bond to anything we call a “ping,” and I’m doubly disincentivized until I can bind the copper system with the satellite system.
Should I need to do all that to be able to access DLC I bought?
Idk, in any case I hope they sort something out with it
(in fact I’m usually the one defending them when it’s justified, however this isn’t)