SpaceHorror
Member
If paid DLC seems worth it, I'll buy it. If not, I won't.
As long as we do get free updates I'll be happy either way.
As long as we do get free updates I'll be happy either way.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-01-22-so-what-do-you-actually-do-in-no-mans-sky
Also pretty clear. It's the contradicting statements that make things vague
Because, as Oni Jazar quoted (his bold):
Which in my personal reading (where yes, I am giving the dev here some benefit of the doubt) sounds like they have a bunch of updates they want to make that will be free, but they won't promise such levels of support indefinitely (ie. when pushed on whether the game will always remain free) and that major updates could possibly have to be premium DLC as it would be impossible for them to make such updates otherwise.
This makes sense to me because indefinite free updates including major new features makes absolutely no sense without some kind of continuing revenue stream, depending upon the size and scope of that development of course. But they obviously have plenty of free updates planned (base building, frigates, tons of other stuff).
The difference here comes down to an update that never happens (if it takes too many resources to develop) versus the possibility that such an update could maybe be feasible as paid DLC.
I get that people don't want to give Sean the benefit of the doubt here with all the vague and contradictory statements on the game's multiplayer, and I can understand that. But there's also a very reasonable way to interpret his statements on post-release support without attributing malice or deception.
What if most of the DLC is free like The Witcher 3? But some huge changes are paid DLC?
The guy can't win.
That tweet was then followed byThat quote is from January 2015. The one I posted was from right before the game released. I think he made it pretty clear at that point.
Which implies that there is a chance to meet. So that's not clear at all to me.The chances of two players ever crossing paths in a universe this large is pretty much zero.
In that interview he isn't just talking about seeing players, he's talking about other players attacking youI think crossing paths with another player is more akin to seeing a ghost or silhouette in Dark Souls. I never remember them talking about co-op or partying up with players and travelling together.
I wouldn't consider 'seeing someone' to be multiplayer. His pre launch tweet was pretty clear
Your point is rendered moot by quotes from the devs, themselves :|People deluded themselves into creating expectations for themselves- this idea that they're doing an about-face and choosing to charge for stuff that they said were going to be free is bullshit.
Developer blatantly makes false claims about game. "Golly! Why so up in arms?"I swear, the amount of people who apparently dont care about NMS yet have apparently seen every interview and can list points off the top of their head for their arguments is fascinating.
Which is fine.If you look at the Steam store page, it clearly says "Single-Player" with no mention of multiplayer so that's not true when it comes to multiplayer.
Good?And what if I don't care about some of the checks that he wrote? What if I care more about the actual game?
Pretty sure people are hating on the devs misdirection and not the game, tbh. There may be some game bashing but an overwhelming amount of discussion is about expectations set by HG.I've come to a realization that people simply want to hate this and nothing will change their mind.
A) irrelevant - see above.I'd love to know how many of the frequent bashers of this game even own it. .
I cannot see how someone could follow all the stories/ruckus and reviews and what-have-you about No Man's Sky without seeing that above is not something that is universally agreed upon. Not even close.
In fact a huge part of the divisiveness of the game centers around whether people find all the contents are satisfying versus those who thought the game was as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle.
Psst. Don't argue with common sense in a NMS thread. Let the hate flow through you. Can't you see? It's all lies. Sean is evil and only wants our money. The whole game is mess and no paid DLC can save it. Yes yes I've seen the future just like 90% of the other posters in here...
I completely agree.
In terms of long term profit and success of cashing into the title free DLC would be more profitable. They would essentially building a long term community as well as providing a more finished product for fans.
But the way things are going Hello Games is making millions on this title but people are to eager to defend their decisions because they're a small indie company. Don't give them power to believe they're above crappy practices because they are the "underdog". There is an entire study on this with Youtubers, we want Hello Games to succeed because their small, but once they get big and found success they feel like they can still get away with decisions because of the previous mentality we feed them which creates... Clusterfucks we all know too well.
If people really want what's best for Hello Games and No Man's Sky you should be fighting for a better game that everyone would love and not some half experience they sold us on. I'm enjoying the game for what it is, but I do feel lied too from previous comments about the game, and the fact that their taking a back seat means they are AVOIDING to say anything that will negatively effect the sales of the game right after the game released because they know if they tell the truth or don't find a comment that twist their words the right way the game would severely drop in sales.
To everyone on Gaf, Im not trying to spout a conspiracy theory but rather pointing out that we the consumers do have an enormous impact on the game and the company. Probably more so then any other game or company right now. And so far from experience, giving companies the idea that any of this is okay is just going to make the problem steadily worse for everyone.
A whole lot of No Mans Boys in this thread. I really appreciate Jim for providing such a fitting label.
4m is pretty dang big! Were they worming through sand and everything?
I don't want to calculate the logic in what he said, just saying exactly what he said. In August of this year he said the quote:
"We do want to add a ton of features, like weve just discussed: Freighters, bases, these type of things. But we want to do it for free. Youve paid for the game, so you should get this stuff without paying even more money. So no, there will be no paid DLC, just patches"
What I take that to mean is that there won't be any paid DLC, but the game will continue to be supported for free. It is literally exactly what he said.
Man, the crowbat video is savage
Man, the crowbat video is savage
Consider Enemy Starfighter/House of the Dying Sun. For years, the plan was to be a Mount & Blade style space game in a dynamic world and factions. A month before release, dev said how that plan had been too ambitious, that the structure didn't suit the combat and gameplay, and he had decided to scrap that larger version and scale the game down to a linear hand-crafted campaign.
Is it lying when the SuperHOT kickstarter page has this art style but the devs eventually decide to go with this one?
Or when Klei said Don't Starve wouldn't have multiplayer, and then deciding to implement multiplayer later?
I am interested in this video, where can i find it?
edit; nevermind, found it
I'll post it for others who are interested and couldn't find it anyway. It isn't very visible since the thread got locked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8P2CZg3sJQ&feature=youtu.be
EDIT: Oh crap, I forgot to mention that the vid does spoil the ending apparently but only at the very, very end of the video where the galaxy map starts zooming. If you are worried about that then just stop there.
Double Edit: I just watched it again and the cue to stop watching to avoid the ending is right after Sean says, "Well, lets not spoil it for people."
I feel like they are pushing it.... I mean it's not like the critical and fan reception is all that great, and they aready made people sixty bucks for a small indie developped game... So threatening for paid updates this early seems almost like extortion.
This dude on reddit has a list of all the promised things that dont seem to be in the final release
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyT...res_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/
This dude on reddit has a list of all the promised things that dont seem to be in the final release
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyT...res_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/
No joke you don't work for free. That's not what is being discussed.
The whole "don't write checks your ass can't cash" is the problem :|
Because, as Oni Jazar quoted (his bold):
Which in my personal reading (where yes, I am giving the dev here some benefit of the doubt) sounds like they have a bunch of updates they want to make that will be free, but they won't promise such levels of support indefinitely (ie. when pushed on whether the game will always remain free) and that major updates could possibly have to be premium DLC as it would be impossible for them to make such updates otherwise.
This makes sense to me because indefinite free updates including major new features makes absolutely no sense without some kind of continuing revenue stream, depending upon the size and scope of that development of course. But they obviously have plenty of free updates planned (base building, frigates, tons of other stuff).
The difference here comes down to an update that never happens (if it takes too many resources to develop) versus the possibility that such an update could maybe be feasible as paid DLC.
I get that people don't want to give Sean the benefit of the doubt here with all the vague and contradictory statements on the game's multiplayer, and I can understand that. But there's also a very reasonable way to interpret his statements on post-release support without attributing malice or deception.