No Man's Sky

[Scufflegrit]

I haven't read the entire thread, but this video seems fairly relevant to the current discussion. It discusses things like the interviews given by Sean Murray. Those aren't considered advertising, but they are considered marketing. And marketing is covered by certain laws meant to protect the consumer in a similar manner as advertising.

[Deleted]

I haven't read the entire thread, but this video seems fairly relevant to the current discussion. It discusses things like the interviews given by Sean Murray. Those aren't considered advertising, but they are considered marketing. And marketing is covered by certain laws meant to protect the consumer in a similar manner as advertising.

The question is though: and now what? It seems like they can be sued, but as far as I understand, no-one will.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This is the what I never understand about people. They will call the game shallow and bare bones. Basically call it a bad game. But then state how they will play it if they pay less for it. The game costing less doesn't change anything about the game play at all. It really shows how exaggerated some of these things statements are. It also says something about gamers, and consumers, that they are willing to accept and play bad games as long as they are not priced beyond a certain point.

Price doesn't change the quality of a game. Good games are still good. Bad games are still Bad.

They also say they got a refund, meaning they played less than 2 hours, meaning they didn't even attempt to find a lot of the stuff that was eventually found to be in the game after all that a lot had claimed wasn't.

It's like "<laundry list of stuff> doesn't exist in the game!"

People find a lot of that stuff is in there after all. Wonder if it felt like when old explorers were told that certain places did not exist, and then they found them.

[1001]

The question is though: and now what? It seems like they can be sued, but as far as I understand, no-one will.

In the UK they would probably be reported to the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) and if found guilty would have to remove offending ads (bit late for this) or publicise that they were found guilty of misleading customers etc.
Honestly couldn't say if fines would be levied or not.

[Zephyr Storm]

They also say they got a refund, meaning they played less than 2 hours, meaning they didn't even attempt to find a lot of the stuff that was eventually found to be in the game after all that a lot had claimed wasn't.

It's like "<laundry list of stuff> doesn't exist in the game!"

People find a lot of that stuff is in there after all. Wonder if it felt like when old explorers were told that certain places did not exist, and then they found them.

The countless streams and videos that anyone can find with a simple Google search says otherwise. Why would someone want to waste any more time on a game that is the same, basic, boring, and repetitive shit at hour 100 that it is at hour 2? Nothing really changes. It's the same shit with slight variations thrown in.

You and several others keep toting this line of "you didn't play long enough to even know!" Problem with that argument is that this is 2016 where we can all do a bit of research and see that most of what you and others are saying is nothing more than a load of biased bullshit. There is more than enough proof to be found that shows the game doesn't really change much from hour 2 to hour 100. If you're bored as shit early on, you'll be bored as shit later on. The game doesn't open up, change, or evolve enough to suddenly become more exciting, add more depth, or do anything different other than throw more colors at you in different sizes and shapes. The other shallow and underwhelming systems in the game aren't developed enough to keep even the main point of the game, exploration, from getting old very fast.

Bottom line is: if you like wandering around aimlessly, are easily entertained by bright colors, and dont mind being scammed, then this game is for you. Anyone looking for a game that has actual depth, complex systems of any kind, variety in what you do, etc, etc, etc (basically the stuff that most people consider standard for a decent game)......then this game isn't for them. It's a niche game with a huge list of cut content that was made by a lying, idiotic developer and sold at an absurdly high price for the kind of game that it is. There are people who like it obviously, but to the vast majority of gamers, the game is pretty bad and overpriced. And in the grand scheme of things, that's all that really matters. Especially when the devs' name is quickly becoming synonymous with "lying douchebag" in the gaming world.

- - - Updated - - -

The question is though: and now what? It seems like they can be sued, but as far as I understand, no-one will.

They need to be sued. End of story. If this was any other kind of business outside of the gaming industry, they'd already be facing legal action. Sean Murray and Hello Games need their asses sued to hell and back.

[Jtbrig7390]

--snip--.

Welcome Back and I agree.

[Zephyr Storm]

For what the game offers, doesn't match the price it asks. It sounds like you have zero sense of monetary value.

It has zero depth, we were sold a lie.

The main developer telling you things that you can do in the game, at major game events is not classed as advertising in your eyes?

What about that special ending once you get to the black hole?

Don't bother. Rhorle has been saying the same things over and over again in a vain attempt to justify their $60 purchase. And apparently, pricing doesn't factor into anything when looking at the value/quality of a product according to them. If the world worked the way they've been acting in this thread....then we would all be spending $100 on a jug of milk simply because the milk is "good enough" and "the price shouldn't matter if you enjoy the product".

- - - Updated - - -

Welcome Back and I agree.

Thanks. God knows this thread needed another voice of reason added back into the mix .

[Jtbrig7390]

Thanks. God knows this thread needed another voice of reason added back into the mix .

I have voiced my opinion and the same three people keep defending it. The only thing ill defend is the devs right to price there games at however much they wish.

Doesn't change the fact the game is a overpriced POS. I rather go buy 7 day's to die for half the price and I would have bought it if legion didn't come out tomorrow.

[Zephyr Storm]

Been mostly away for the weekend and ran across this.

Are disappointed gamers aware?

"'No Man's Sky' Refunds: Steam, Sony, Amazon Offer Refund To Players, No Matter How Long Game Was Played"

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/no-mans...ng-game-552797

It's very telling of just how bad the game really is and how much the developer fucked up when all those services are offering refunds, regardless of the amount of time played. You don't see this shit happening with 99% of games out there. But when you do see it, you know the game/dev fucked up big time.

Now to wait for the usual brigade of NMS/Hello Games apologists and defenders to come in claiming otherwise with their biased outlook on the entire situation.

[Jtbrig7390]

It's very telling of just how bad the game really is and how much the developer fucked up when all those services are offering refunds, regardless of the amount of time played. You don't see this shit happening with 99% of games out there. But when you do see it, you know the game/dev fucked up big time.

Now to wait for the usual brigade of NMS/Hello Games apologists and defenders to come in claiming otherwise with their biased outlook on the entire situation.

already had one...and they still haven't provided a link to prove there claim

I've seen some reports of Steam turning down refund requests and stating there was a "bug" in their systems that was approving NMS refunds over time played.

[Zephyr Storm]

Hehe. Yeah, people didn't find 90% of the game! ... in their first two hours of play.

About half of the features that people originally claimed weren't in the game (those same people who played less than two hours and didn't find that 90% of the game in those first two hours) were later found, but to be fair to them, it was only half.

Your argument would hold some weight to it, if the game actually changed or evolved much past the 2 hour mark. Problem is that it doesn't. It's still the same old, repetitive, shallow game the whole way through, just with different color and size variations thrown in. Exploration is pretty much the ONLY thing this game has going for it, and you can get a VERY good idea of what that's like 2-4 hours into the game. The other barebones/almost nonexistent features/systems of the game do not do enough to keep things fresh, interesting, or offer any kind of change of pace from the repetitive exploration. The crafting/upgrading/survival system is pretty much the only other thing of note besides exploration and that whole shitshow of a system is there only to artificially increase play time and how long it takes you to get to the center of the galaxy.

Once again, this is one of those games that most people with a bit of common sense and critical thinking can see that things won't change enough from hour 2 to hour 100 to justify the price or the continued playing of the game. This isn't one of those games where you can actually delve deeper into features, systems, or mechanics of the game as time goes on. It's not a game where you have to try to master a complex combat system, get better at PvP, find more interesting/deeper parts of the lore, pick up trade professions to have something else to do, play mini games you find along the way, etc, etc, etc. You simply explore. And explore. And explore. Oh, and explore some more. With almost nothing else to break up the repetitive and tedious nature of said exploring with the exception of repetitive and tedious forced crafting in order to continue on with the repetitive and tedious exploring.

It's 2016. Google, YouTube, and Twitch are working against your arguments here. There's more than enough proof for anyone with basic comprehension skills to see through yours and several others' biased viewpoints.

- - - Updated - - -

already had one...and they still haven't provided a link to prove there claim

Ahhhh, I missed that one. And now that I've seen it, all I can do is /facepalm. And it doesn't surprise me to see who it was that was arguing against it.

- - - Updated - - -

"There're a quintillion different ways, you can do five fucking things" haha.

The part where neoneowulfx almost died, because of the cutscene, made me cringe.

"There's a quintillion different ways, you can do five fucking things." Indeed. That made me lol too. Because it's so fucking true. And the cutscene part was pretty cringeworthy.

I feel like the procedural generation that this game hinges upon so much is actually one of the things that makes this game so fucking bad. It's like the guy in the video said......they could have reduced the total number of planets to 20, but hand crafted them and made them actually interesting to explore and add so much more depth to them. And also put in some kind of story and deeper, more complex game systems on top of it. Instead, we got 18 quintillion planets of more or less the same thing, just with "different Instagram filters" (loled at that one too).

Procedural generation....the one thing this game had going for it, and even that ended up fucking the game over as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus fucking christ...

Walking as in 'eh, I don't mind walking this instead of flying there' kind of distance.

You might as well not even bother man. The White Knights will come up with anything to prove you wrong.

You know someone is desperate to defend their favored game when they start using things like "walking distance" as an argument to why the game doesn't suck. That's the one thing the defenders of the game seem to like to do....argue over semantics and subjective bullshit.

[Deleted]

Welcome back.

Yeah, hand crafted would've been better. Look at games like The Solus Project, looks great.

Another thing I've noticed. With the apparent lack of stars and yet planets were shown to have night/day progression, like in that time lapsed clip I posted before release, how does that even happen?

Especially weird, when every planet is tidally locked to.....something?

[zealo]

This is the what I never understand about people. They will call the game shallow and bare bones. Basically call it a bad game. But then state how they will play it if they pay less for it. The game costing less doesn't change anything about the game play at all. It really shows how exaggerated some of these things statements are. It also says something about gamers, and consumers, that they are willing to accept and play bad games as long as they are not priced beyond a certain point.

Price doesn't change the quality of a game. Good games are still good. Bad games are still Bad.

Implying there's not varying degrees of good, varying degrees of bad, and varying degrees of mediocre in between 10/10 to 0/10. It doesn't flip a switch and go from one extreme into the other.

The fact you can't grasp that people correlate value to how much they're being charged for something doesn't mean it doesn't work that way.

[rhorle]

For what the game offers, doesn't match the price it asks. It sounds like you have zero sense of monetary value.

So because I think that a bad game is always bad no matter what I pay for it I have no value? What I said doesn't even reference value. It references a game being called bad now still being bad even if the price is different. It doesn't matter about the value because it is still a "shallow and bare bones" game. That is what I was saying. Its completely understandable to buy a game when it is cheaper. I do that all the time. I know I don't really play Farcry games much but when they are cheap I'll buy them to experience them.

The ending is not a lie. No matter how bad it is, there is no lie with it. And no a game development conference is not an advertisement for the game in the legal sense. No one would ever show something off at the game conferences if they have to be legally held to having it in their game. Actually think about that for a second.

[Gorsameth]

This is the what I never understand about people. They will call the game shallow and bare bones. Basically call it a bad game. But then state how they will play it if they pay less for it. The game costing less doesn't change anything about the game play at all. It really shows how exaggerated some of these things statements are. It also says something about gamers, and consumers, that they are willing to accept and play bad games as long as they are not priced beyond a certain point.

Price doesn't change the quality of a game. Good games are still good. Bad games are still Bad.

Complete and utter horseshit

Minesweeper is an enjoyable experience for me every now and then, I would pay 2 bucks to play it (I know its free, work with me) but I certainly wouldnt pay 100 for it.
Witcher 3 is an amazing game I gladly pay 60 for, Heck I would buy it for a 100 dollars. But I wouldn't want it for 1000. I would rather spend that on something else.

A Honda Civic is a fine car what driving to and from work. But I wouldn't pay a million dollars for it.

Everything in life is relative, to claim otherwise is as bullshit as I expect from every single post you have made in this thread.

[rhorle]

Implying there's not varying degrees of good, varying degrees of bad, and varying degrees of mediocre in between 10/10 to 0/10. It doesn't flip a switch and go from one extreme into the other. The fact you can't grasp that people correlate value to how much they're being charged for something doesn't mean it doesn't work that way.

The person I quoted was calling the game shallow and bare bones. That won't change because they suddenly pay less for the game. The fact that you can't grasp context doesn't mean it doesn't work that way.

[zealo]

The person I quoted was calling the game shallow and bare bones. That won't change because they suddenly pay less for the game. The fact that you can't grasp context doesn't mean it doesn't work that way.

But what can change is how much the depth of that matters, but it seems the point about price and value completely went over your head.

[rhorle]

Everything in life is relative, to claim otherwise is as bullshit as I expect from every single post you have made in this thread.

Which shows you didn't understand what I posted. An amazing game is still an amazing game no matter the price. Sure you won't pay an outrageous sum for it but it doesn't change the quality of the game. A Honda Civic that doesn't run won't suddenly start running just because you paid $5 for it.

A game that is shallow and bare bones will still be shallow and bare bones at a lower price. That is what I was commenting on. That when someone calls a game bad now it will still remain bad at a different price point. The problem with consumers is that they are saying that a bad game suddenly becomes good because of value. But that isn't how it works no matter how much you want to call my post bull.

- - - Updated - - -

But what can change is how much the depth of that matters, but it seems the point about price and value completely went over your head.

You literally believe that the game play of NMS will magically change because you've paid $30 vs $60? It is still the same game play which is the point. No matter how much you want to try to claim value it just doesn't work. If someone things the game is bad it will still be bad at a lower price, they are just willing to play a bad game. Which means that the game wasn't as bad as they were saying it was to begin with.

[Gorsameth]

Which shows you didn't understand what I posted. An amazing game is still an amazing game no matter the price. Sure you won't pay an outrageous sum for it but it doesn't change the quality of the game. A Honda Civic that doesn't run won't suddenly start running just because you paid $5 for it.

A game that is shallow and bare bones will still be shallow and bare bones at a lower price. That is what I was commenting on. That when someone calls a game bad now it will still remain bad at a different price point. The problem with consumers is that they are saying that a bad game suddenly becomes good because of value. But that isn't how it works no matter how much you want to call my post bull.

Pong is incredibly shallow and bare bones and no one would pay money for it but when its free its an enjoyable simple game.

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE

[Elim Garak]

Pong is enjoyable simple game regardless of whether it's free or not.

The price issue is mostly expendable income issue. The bigger your expendable income is the less price issues you have. "Shallow bare bones" is just a rationalization to compensate for inadequate income or as they put it: "it's so bad it's not worth my money" while it's in fact not bad, it's just the price bites.