No Man's Sky

[Deleted]

The real problem I have with NMS is that it seems to have been designed to occupy owners for all of about 2hours. Which is where Steam's current refund policy is at. After that the realisation that you bought a hollow shell of a game comes crashing down upon you and you realise you were sold a barebones product on hype and outright lies. There was no real way of making an accurate assessment of this game that enabled you to get your money back if you decided it wasn't worth £39.99. Which, when you dig deeper than the intro screen and first solar system, it definitely isn't!

[rhorle]

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

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=steam+denying+NMS+refunds

Edit 14 - Steam has put up a notice that they have stopped making an exception for NMS, good luck to all those who placed their requests. I imagine the demand was unprecedented. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTh...s_sky_refunds/

The standard Steam refund policy applies to No Man's Sky. There are no special exemptions available. Click here for more detail on the Steam refund policy. http://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/

Some more:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/27585...7436760338888/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/27585...7436760500330/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/27585...7436760135705/
http://www.pcinvasion.com/no-mans-sk...-refund-notice


The steam discussion page has a bunch of locked threads regarding the issue. Some report it can still be done and some report that it can't even with a support ticket. But hey I must simply be an apologist and defender for stating a turn of events that has nothing to do with defending or apologizing for NMS.

[Axxy]

I really don't think that suing the Company for whatever reason is the answer, because the damage has already been done to HG, maybe not the likes of Sony, because I think the bigger the company, the less they're likely to change their business practices.

I do wonder what the rest of the team back at HG were thinking when they saw and heard some of the statements Sean Murray was making about their game. HG could still save the game and I hope they do, but they need to drop Sean Murray who must be a big liablity for the company going forward or it's all over for them, if it's not already.

I am going to say that I am in the same camp as Zephyr, Jtbrig and others in how NMS has been received by gamers and how HG marketed NMS. What I don't understand is how people can still defend the game. We still see people claiming thay players aren't devs or programmers so what do they know about it. I'm old enough to have lived through the home computer era, back in the C64/Spectrum days and earlier. Back in the day, there were no demos, you paid your money and took your choice. And boy were there some turds in the last 40 years. Gamers know a bad game when they see one, the only difference nowadays, is social media, u-tube and the internet where you can see the game being played or beta-tested, and the world gets to know within hours. Are people really prepared to pay good money for shit games? are people's expectations really that low?

In a way, nothings really changed. Back then, corrupt games magazines would give favourable reviews (sometimes to unfinished games) because without keeping the gaming companies happy, they wouldn't have anything the review. Today, some people seem happy with substandard games, I don't know what the answer is..

I also think that the rise of Pre-orders should be cut back a bit. After D3, I haven't personally pre-ordered any game and won't ever again. I will wait to see the initial reaction to anything. Like I said in a previous post, I would have got this game but I won't now. Maybe they can add the stuff in the future that would make me wanna play it, but not yet....

[rhorle]

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

So which is it. Shallow and bare bones or an enjoyable simple game? At $60 it is still an enjoyable simple game. It just isn't worth $60 its value is lower. That is the difference in what I am saying. Value independent of quality. A bad game is still bad even if you pay less (increasing its Value). Just as a good game is still good even if you pay more (decreasing its Value).

The problem I was pointing out is exactly how you are classifying Minesweeper. You are painting the game in a negative light when you have to pay for it, and a good light when you don't have to pay for it. Why? It is the same exact game. Why can't you separate the Cost from the Quality when the two don't change each other?

[zealo]

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.

I have claimed no such thing. That the gameplay is going to "magically change" as you put it, that's your interpretation, not what I actually said.

What I have said, is that if you can't grasp that people's perception of value changes with how much of their wallet they're expected to open to take part, that's your problem and not one with gamers.

In other words, stop dealing in absolutes.

[zvr]

Interesting game, but I prefer SpaceEngine :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve0Bpmx8Fk0

[Tekkommo]

I have higher expectations if I pay more.

It's as simple as that, and I thought it would have been obvious, but you seem intent on beating a dead horse.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting game, but I prefer SpaceEngine :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve0Bpmx8Fk0

That's really cool.

Would I pay £40 for it? No I wouldn't, lucky it's free then.

[rhorle]

I have claimed no such thing. That the gameplay is going to "magically change" as you put it, that's your interpretation, not what I actually said.

How does the depth of the game change when it would still be the same "shallow and bare bones" game play? Remember this isn't about people liking a game but not liking it enough to buy it at X price. It is about someone bashing the game but then magically finding the game to be okay when the price is lower. The game hasn't changed. So if they hated it before they should still hate it because it is the same exact game play.

Look at the pong example another poster used. If its free its enjoyable simple game play. If they have to pay its shallow and bare bones. So doesn't that mean the game is still shallow and bare bones when free? Because nothing about the game changes when it becomes free. So there is a disconnect somewhere. Which is what I have been posting about.

That when someone has to pay something that they don't want to pay the cast it in a negative light. But when they have to pay at or lower then what they want to pay it is cast in a favorable light. When it is the same exact game play.

[zealo]

How about you start responding to what is actually being written instead of putting up a straw man and then debunking said straw man?

[rhorle]

I have higher expectations if I pay more.

Which is irrelevant to what I have been saying. The game play doesn't change when the price goes up or down. If you hate everything about a game at $60 then it shouldn't change at $20. The gameplay never changes. So either you don't hate it as much as you originally said. Or you like punishing yourself by playing something you hate. You is a general you if that isn't clear.

"The game should be more complex for the price" is not what I am talking about
"The game is simple and should only be X price" is not what I am talking about
"The game sucks. Its shallow. Its bare bones. Its terrible" becoming "The game is fine" when the price changes is what I am talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

How about you start responding to what is actually being written instead of putting up a straw man and then debunking said straw man?

How does the depth of the game change when the price changes? Nothing about the game physically (or digitally) changes when the price is lowered.

[Tekkommo]

Which is irrelevant to what I have been saying.

It's not irrelevant to what I am saying.

[Cyclone Jack]

"The game sucks. Its shallow. Its bare bones. Its terrible" becoming "The game is fine" when the price changes is what I am talking about.

How does the depth of the game change when the price changes? Nothing about the game physically (or digitally) changes when the price is lowered.

It is the perceived value of the game. People are more critical of games that are more expensive. The same game at $20 or $60 will get different reviews, as price can play a huge part in that. For example, There are a ton of fantastic indie games that were released for $20. If those same games were released at $60, their reviews would be vastly different, even though they are the same game. Their perceived value would have changed based upon their price point.

[Deleted]

hahahaha

https://gfycat.com/WellgroomedFineBats

[rhorle]

Dude, you are aware that "advertisement" isn't just what you pay for to show up on the TV or journal paper, right? If you are selling a product that catches the media attention and they request you an interview, you’ll be there exposing your product to the public with every question you answer. Thus why many even pay for such media coverage in order to “not really” advertise their products…

Gaming conferences and interviews are not always legally classified as advertisement. This is why a lot of developers and publishers are not constantly sued when something changes about their game prior to launch. If it was the case then you could sue them for false advertisement because their E3 footage and interviews referenced something that changed from the final version of the game. It just doesn't work that way and things have to meet certain requirements to be a viable claim. The requirements may be met with NMS but it isn't as simple as "Its different so it is legal False Advertisment".

Look at Colional Marines for example http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gea.../1100-6427678/ has " What's more, because Colonial Marines was advertised through a range of videos and presentations, it would be difficult to pin down which were misleading which were not, the court said."

It should also be noted that Gearbox was removed from that lawsuit and wasn't blamed for what happened. Sega (the publisher) eventually settled for 1.25 million over the claims. Sega also said they will have a disclaimer on all footage shown for any game in development stating "Its in development and subject to change".

[Karon]

http://i.imgur.com/EUBK7QD.png

that would be awesome

[Zephyr Storm]

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.

A bad game is a bad game, regardless of the price. A bad game at $60 is still a bad game at $15, but most people would be more willing to pay the $15 because it correlates with how much they feel the game is actually worth or how much effort they think the developer actually put into the game. Price is a huge determining factor for a lot of people when talking about quality/value of a product. A lot of people can and do think that features that only cost a fraction of the original asking price can actually be seen as better when the price is lower, because it all comes down to correlation of price vs. quality.

You need to accept this fact, because this is how the world works. Just because you are happy paying $60 for a product that's really only worth $10-$15, doesn't mean 90% of the rest of the population is ok with that.

[Mister Cheese]

You know there's a problem.

[Deleted]

meanwhile steam reviews seem to be dropping intensely. A few days ago NMS had a positive rating of 51%, now it's 41%

[Zephyr Storm]

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.

False. I have what most would consider a disposable income, and I find that NMS is not worth $60 at all. Everything is relative when talking about price vs. quality. The fact that you and a few others keep arguing this fact, once again shows how much you're grasping at straws to defend this game. Oh, and shows that you and a few others are making very bad and false assumptions about the people saying the game costs too much.

- - - Updated - - -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=steam+denying+NMS+refunds

Edit 14 - Steam has put up a notice that they have stopped making an exception for NMS, good luck to all those who placed their requests. I imagine the demand was unprecedented. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTh...s_sky_refunds/

The standard Steam refund policy applies to No Man's Sky. There are no special exemptions available. Click here for more detail on the Steam refund policy. http://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/

Some more:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/27585...7436760338888/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/27585...7436760500330/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/27585...7436760135705/
http://www.pcinvasion.com/no-mans-sk...-refund-notice


The steam discussion page has a bunch of locked threads regarding the issue. Some report it can still be done and some report that it can't even with a support ticket. But hey I must simply be an apologist and defender for stating a turn of events that has nothing to do with defending or apologizing for NMS.

But yet it was happening and looks like it can still happen depending on the ticket. Also doesn't change the fact that the other services and retailers are still offering refunds regardless of time played.

Still grasping at those straws I see.

- - - Updated - - -

I have higher expectations if I pay more.

It's as simple as that, and I thought it would have been obvious, but you seem intent on beating a dead horse.

- - - Updated - - -



That's really cool.

Would I pay £40 for it? No I wouldn't, lucky it's free then.

Rhorle is beating that dead horse because it's pretty much one of the only things they have left to grasp at in order to defend this game. That and they fail to grasp the simple idea of value vs. quality and how a product can go from being bad to "ok" for a lot of people if the price is changed enough in order to compensate for the product's lack of quality.

[rhorle]

Still grasping at those straws I see.

I can't be grasping at straws if it is plain as day "The standard Steam refund policy applies to No Man's Sky. There are no special exemptions available. Click here for more detail on the Steam refund policy." You are so deluded by this need to hate and be right that you can't even see a plain old unbiased factual statement for what it is. Steam refunds are no longer available beyond the normal refund criteria.