But doesn’t that make it easier to hack the db to allow access if it’s stored locally?
They are between a rock and a hard place here because they are trying to make the game everything and now decisions and planning are at odds with the original broad approach. Are they a game as a service or is it a standard game? You can’t do game as service with offline games…there is no Fortnite offline.
Nosir. It could be an encrypted value set that goes through a quick online “fragmented” check (we used to say checksum), say once a week.
Apologies, Darth, but you’ve made me look deeper into @Xevyr’s posts and I don’t see anti-Funcom. If anything, Xevyr is assenting to the realities of Capitalism.
Keep in mind that I came to Conan as a guy tired of the junk in GTA. Preliminarily, I detested their desire to boost online players by requiring long, time-consuming leveling of things like Bunkers. So deceptive.
Also with GTA, unless I find some way to get everyone kicked from a server, I cannot enjoy the content I bought without being online. As you may know, I used to make actual guides for GTA from 1 all the way to 5, so having the stuff was important. I looked: my character has spent $196 million in in-game cash and has $23 million in el banco.
I came to Conan Exiles because they were open. Transparent. Friendly. Non-aggressive. Kinda like Jon Bon Jovi: Play it. Or don’t. Your choice.
With the example above, it is undeniable that this was either not a consideration at all, or it was a deliberate choice. That you “hope” there will be a fix is great, Darth, but it has obviously been low on the prio list. So let’s speed the plow.
I can see why people would think that, but I don’t agree with it based on what I’ve heard. It probably isnt in the next patch, maybe not even the one after that (chapter 3 is only a few weeks away) but I would place money it is fixed by the end of the next chapter.
Edit: Think of it like this. There are players who would play online, but don’t/can’t for whatever reason. The BP/Bazaar sales are then disadvantaged with those players. If it were possible to allow them to be able to use the items offline without creating a security hole, that’s just more money.
Ehh, not really. I have a feeling that some version of Funcom optimism played a role in that 
They often do things anticipating the best case scenario and coding for that, only to be surprised when the other scenarios happen more frequently than anticipated.
So there might have been a “People have internet all the time and our servers are gonna be online 99% of the time so let’s go with the simplest option that offers the highest security” -like thought involved.
And I’m also not saying that they won’t change this, quite the opposite, I think they realized it wasn’t the best idea already and possibly trying to figure out a different approach. I can’t say for sure ofc 
This is countermanded by the fact that they went to great lengths in the past to let people play offline when for awhile, they could not.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. It’s not possible today and they are looking at how to make it happen.
Let us not quibble over the intents and desires of the inscrutable. Arguing non-falsifiables ultimately is only pure sport.
Is there anyone present with a deeper understanding of coding who could compare and contrast mechanisms for establishing entitlement?
Perhaps suggest systems that would work like the previous DLC system did so that connectivity status is not relevant? On the PSN, these additions are pinioned to one’s PSN account. Moving the Bazaar to that would be very tricky as only the Crom Coins were purchased on the PSN.
Could the test for entitlement be changed to a particular single player server’s records? If this item is already present in offline (only) that item is obviously allowed?
One would still need a connection when initially starting a game that would be offline, but after spawning a single instance of each of the desired components, that would anchor permissions?
Ideally the purchase would just toggle the permission in the game files themselves, rather than everything being locked to unallowed without a discrete permission given at an instance, but this one knows not how much work that is.
Funcom has noted a resistance to having an actual Funcom account that one’s CC purchases would be pinioned to, so that isn’t an option.
Pooh.
Very true. And the reason they gave was that it would be a pain for us, so they are looking at ways to make it so we don’t have to do just that.
Since this topic is turning into a fight, I did some testing.
This screenshot was taken while online.
This screenshot was taken after I disconnected from the internet (I have wireless disabled) by unplugging the network cable and restarting the game. As long as the outfit items are equipped, they will work.
Looking at my inventory, after switching to a different set already in my inventory, I see this. I cannot reequip the outfit since I am offline.
After reconnecting to the internet, I can use the items.
While testing this, I noticed that if you are connected and get disconnected, you can still use the items you purchased. I did not test shields and weapons since I do not use them in my SP game.
Amazing every day i come back from work and try to play CE my, the server i play 1977 offical Latam pve-C still unjoyable due to the freeze in loading screen bug. And now i discover that if i resolve to play off-line the stuff i bought in bp/blb will not work properlly.
I don’t care what you said in that post; I love that gif, and am keeping it.
Ideally, remove the stupid Games as Live Service component.
