Support NeoGAF

[Marty Chinn]

Then what, devs can talk about any and everything without need to explain when things change? Or do you have an actual solution?

It's not an all or nothing situation. They shouldn't say any and everything but they shouldn't have to release a laundry list that addresses every interview done worldwide, every preview, and every hands on write up. It's an unreasonable request. Gamers need to accept that games change over time and that some stuff just won't make it into the final game. It's the nature of game development. I'm also not saying they didn't do anything wrong either; they did. I'm simply addressing the issue that they need to completely come clean after the game is done is unrealistic.

To be fair, most games don't have the devs making up outlandish bullshit to sell it that needs to be mopped up by a PR agent.

I don't disagree. The way they handled some things was terrible. The whole vague and misleading stuff about multiplayer was totally stupid and completely their fault.

 

[jman2050]

I need proof that I think things are being blown out of proportion? It's my opinion.

Like I said, I'm disappointed in the state it was released in - especially the crashing issue - I can't believe they let that get past QC. I'm one of the idiots that had initially double dipped and bought it both on PS4 and Steam. I refunded my steam purchase after playing it for only 27 minutes. The game runs like shit on PC.

It's just weird watching just how bent out of shape some people are about it. That's just my opinion. Maybe I just don't get completely bent out of shape about things. Those who want to rage, feel free to rage. I'm sure there will be several lawsuits coming (I've already read about one supposed suit that is coming).

I just said that I personally don't get it. That's all.

No one likes the feeling of being deceived.

I don't disagree. The way they handled some things was terrible. The whole vague and misleading stuff about multiplayer was totally stupid and completely their fault.

It's not even just about the multiplayer. HG sold this game primarily on the promise of a living functioning universe that didn't "cheat" the way all those "other" games did. That was the entire hook! And then the game comes out and it turns out that promise was nothing but a complete fabrication. And no, I don't believe for a second that they tried to implement that vision and weren't able to and thus had to fall back on cheats. You can't make an attempt to simulate an organically generated universe and base your entire game design around that idea and then just "turn it off" when it doesn't work out. That's tantamount to saying that they restarted the entire development process from scratch some time within the past two years.

 

[Conkerkid11]

This needs to be the first post in all threads like these.

Why? 99% of the people visiting the thread aren't going to read that.

Also, I really don't think it applies here. This is an indie developer. Sean Murray isn't a marketer for the game, he's a developer. One of the benefits seen in being an indie developer is you can throw away all that shit that goes along with working for a AAA developer, and this includes hyping up your game so much to the point where it cannot possibly live up to what you've promised.

And you certainly don't make every possible effort to dodge any questions regarding the aspects of the game you previously said existed. It's not just that he wasn't straightforward with us prior to the game's launch, but he's being even less straightforward now that the game's been out for a week.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

I don't disagree. The way they handled some things was terrible. The whole vague and misleading stuff about multiplayer was totally stupid and completely their fault.

Worse, he's now completely silent. Noone likes feeling like they've been scammed, and then for the issue to go ignored makes it even more obnoxious.

 

[DigitalScrap]

How are things being blown out of a proportion. Misleading marketing isn't something worth documenting, investigating and trying to stop?


K m8

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Just to be clear, I'm fine with the discussion - I'm not trying to shut down discussion (whatever that means, I didn't know I had that power). Like I said. I even refunded the thing on Steam.

And I'm not so much talking about the discussions here - GAF hasn't been too hyperbolic with it. But have you seen some of the stuff on Twitter and Reddit?

The game definitely has issues, and does NOT live up to what was said. Because of this, I will take any future statements from HG with a huge boulder of salt. Burn me once...

 

[Shaneus]

There are a few videos, lists, and posts here that have gone into excruciating detail on the lack of clarity HG and Murray have shown, all from the latter's mouth. A bunch of those aren't things that can be discovered later on down the line, but simply don't exists because they aren't there.

People will absolutely take footage of a game and think that the game will come out that way. As they should. The developer displays a bunch of footage saying, "this is our game", and how are we to know any different unless they tell us differently? Even then, it's not difficult for a developer to mention that a thing has changed so that people aren't uninformed when they go in.

Is "lack of clarity" anything to do with a promise, though?

Possibly, but the fact is we got the opposite of that. He's made claims about the game and its scope that literally aren't true, even the product page on Steam still uses that old 2014 trailer. Even earlier this year he was peddling some embellished crap. It's misleading, deceptive, poor form and not cool at all.

He talked this game up to no end then went silent about features that were removed/possibly never existed/changed. He's a bullshit artist. He and Sony are both responsible for peddling this fake perception of the game to people.

That's probably the most damning thing there. It'd be different (still shit though) if there was a prerendered intro and it was shown for story or something, but leaving that footage up on a store page literally as an advertisement/teaser... that's definitely not a good look. I'd put it down to HG not being on top of what media is out there and in what context, but that doesn't make it excusable.


I'm still not thinking that Murray was blatantly misleading people deliberately. Actually thinking it's closer to a case of what happened with Driveclub, where (for whatever reason or another) the features advertised as being available at launch quite simply aren't there. It's for that reason I honestly think these bullet points that aren't in the game as it stands now *will* most likely make it in eventually. They just aren't in there now.

So I guess the numerous mentions of NMS being akin to an Early Access/Kickstarter game are somewhat accurate, in a sense.

 

[Jimrpg]

Would all this have been given more of a pass if the footage shown had a tagline of something like "Pre-alpha footage, may not represent final product"? Seems that a lot of people are taking that kind of footage and saying "we were promised this!".

Not to say Murray didn't make verbal promises of things that didn't wind up appearing in NMS, but I'm not seeing many instances of him forthrightly confirming features that are 100% not in the game (and not just potentially undiscovered).

He delayed the game at the end of last year and moved to June 2016. That was probably when they scrapped whatever they were doing and started trimming the game down to what it is today. That still gives him 6 to 7 months to be straight forward about the game. Almost every interview he is talking out of his ass and saying things that will never be in the game.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

That's probably the most damning thing there. It'd be different (still shit though) if there was a prerendered intro and it was shown for story or something, but leaving that footage up on a store page literally as an advertisement/teaser... that's definitely not a good look. I'd put it down to HG not being on top of what media is out there and in what context, but that doesn't make it excusable.

I think he's shown he isn't much for transparency or being upfront. They're updating the Steam page themselves, they know what's out there. Totally unacceptable.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It's not an all or nothing situation. They shouldn't say any and everything but they shouldn't have to release a laundry list that addresses every interview done worldwide, every preview, and every hands on write up. It's an unreasonable request. Games need to accept that games change over time and that some stuff just won't make it into the final game. It's the nature of game development. I'm also not saying they didn't do anything wrong either; they did. I'm simply addressing the issue that they need to completely come clean after the game is done is unrealistic.

I don't think it's actually a terribly unreasonable request for most devs, because most devs message carefully. Funnily, it's actually almost unreasonable for No Man's Sky because it had so much BS around it and the seemingly concrete way they talked about things. They'd spend ages trying to figure out how much bull they shot out.

Maybe it's just a faulty recollection, but I think a lot of developers, probably under the hand of PR, are more careful about saying what is in the game and what they would like to add and what they're working on adding. And again, this could be a faulty memory, but a lot of what Sean talked about seemed like he was saying "our universe is X way," "it will do Y and Z," etc.

When a lot of this could be solved by talking more about the stage of development, "You know we're in Alpha right now and we're currently testing X feature. I'm not sure that it'll make it in, but we're excited about it." Don't promise the stars when you might only be able deliver the sky.

And of course don't use old footage from old builds for your marketing. That's just dirty.

 

[DigitalScrap]

They're updating the Steam page themselves, they know what's out there. Totally unacceptable.

I agree with you 100%. They can't pull that video down everywhere on the Internet, but they certainly can remove it from the Steam sales page (and they should have when they knew what stuff they were cutting to try to make the new delayed release date).

We'll probably never know what happened, but I'm guessing they were told they couldn't delay it another year - not with the deal they made (and money they took).

 

[Ollie Pooch]

I agree with you 100%. They can't pull that video down everywhere on the Internet, but they certainly can remove it from the Steam sales page (and they should have when they knew what stuff they were cutting to try to make the new delayed release date).

We'll probably never know what happened, but I'm guessing they were told they couldn't delay it another year - not with the deal they made (and money they took).

Yeah, I'm sure the real story lies somewhere in the middle between 'totally lied, ripped us off knowingly!' and the realities of retail expectation, marketing agreements, etc. I would love to know what actually happened. One thing's for sure, I doubt Sean Murray will be the mouthpiece for HG much longer.

 

[Jimrpg]

Is "lack of clarity" anything to do with a promise, though?


That's probably the most damning thing there. It'd be different (still shit though) if there was a prerendered intro and it was shown for story or something, but leaving that footage up on a store page literally as an advertisement/teaser... that's definitely not a good look. I'd put it down to HG not being on top of what media is out there and in what context, but that doesn't make it excusable.


I'm still not thinking that Murray was blatantly misleading people deliberately. Actually thinking it's closer to a case of what happened with Driveclub, where (for whatever reason or another) the features advertised as being available at launch quite simply aren't there. It's for that reason I honestly think these bullet points that aren't in the game as it stands now *will* most likely make it in eventually. They just aren't in there now.

So I guess the numerous mentions of NMS being akin to an Early Access/Kickstarter game are somewhat accurate, in a sense.

Anytime someone says Sean is not lying or not misleading intentionally I'm just going to quote the Atlantic article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/artificial-universe-no-mans-sky/463308/

There was actual communication with Driveclub, rushy was on Twitter and on GAF, they definitely stuffed up but the multiplayer was working during the review period and the entire multiplayer code must have been so poorly written that they took nearly 2-3 months to get it right.

I don't think they hyped up anything that was not in the game.

In Hello Games case they said meeting other players was in (amongst other things they also said) and there's not one trace of multiplayer in the PC data mining yet even the data for E3 presentations are there?

 

[Marty Chinn]

I don't think it's actually a terribly unreasonable request for most devs, because most devs message carefully. Funnily, it's actually almost unreasonable for No Man's Sky because it had so much BS around it and the seemingly concrete way they talked about things. They'd spend ages trying to figure out how much bull they shot out.

Maybe it's just a faulty recollection, but I think a lot of developers, probably under the hand of PR, are more careful about saying what is in the game and what they would like to add and what they're working on adding. And again, this could be a faulty memory, but a lot of what Sean talked about seemed like he was saying "our universe is X way," "it will do Y and Z," etc.

When a lot of this could be solved by talking more about the stage of development, "You know we're in Alpha right now and we're currently testing X feature. I'm not sure that it'll make it in, but we're excited about it." Don't promise the stars when you might only be able deliver the sky.

And of course don't use old footage from old builds for your marketing. That's just dirty.

It is unreasonable though because over the course of say three years, there will be hands on and demos and people will write about things they saw in the demo or presentation that might not end up in the final game. They have to account for those things too and when you factor in the hundreds of press that covers these things, it becomes unweildly to have to address every single thing that got mentioned across all the outlets in every interview, hands on, preview, etc. It's just an unreasonable stance that a developer will have to address every single thing when the game is done because of how much changes over the course of development. I say this as someone who has had plenty of experience on both ends of that spectrum and how these things play out. If you want this accountability, you're going to have a lot less info coming out of the game at all in order to minimize the stuff that you want to hold them accountable for.

Again, they aren't innocent in all this and they handled all sorts of shit poorlly. I just think this notion that a developer, publisher, PR, etc has to address every single thing that didn't make it into the final game in order to please gamers so that they don't get mislead is an unreasonable and unrealistic request.

 

[00ich]

Then what, devs can talk about any and everything without need to explain when things change? Or do you have an actual solution?

Don't buy a game you know nothing from independent sources about. No man's sky could have fulfilled everything mentioned in any interview and turn out to be a far worse game at the same time.

 

[mr.beers]

I'm bummed I enjoyed the game for what it was until this thread then I watched this complete trailer set that No Man's Sky's YouTube channel release a little under two months ago: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=orFgCah2r5k

I ran out of fingers and toes counting what is missing from the final game.

 

[Axiology]

The one problem I have is the notion that developers need to comb through years of interviews to write up a press release of everything that changed since they said it before they release the game. It's unreasonable.

Oh please. Let's not act like it's some sort of torture to explain why the dozens of sky-high claims they made weren't actually in the game. These people have made millions off of this game, if it takes a little digging to clarify statements that they didn't have to make in the first place I'm not gonna cry about it.

Also, it's not like we're whining about not being able to name your ship (even though he did promise that,) the dude said there were gonna be actual solar systems with accurately modeled gravity. He said you'd be able to fly into stars. He said there would be a wanted system that ratcheted up into bigger and bigger threats. These are huge things that would take months and months to program-- and these guys know their game better than anyone else. If they're lying about these features it's not a mistake.

 

[Pepboy]

It is unreasonable though because over the course of say three years, there will be hands on and demos and people will write about things they saw in the demo or presentation that might not end up in the final game. They have to account for those things too and when you factor in the hundreds of press that covers these things, it becomes unweildly to have to address every single thing that got mentioned across all the outlets in every interview, hands on, preview, etc. It's just an unreasonable stance that a developer will have to address every single thing when the game is done because of how much changes over the course of development. I say this as someone who has had plenty of experience on both ends of that spectrum and how these things play out. If you want this accountability, you're going to have a lot less info coming out of the game at all in order to minimize the stuff that you want to hold them accountable for.

Again, they aren't innocent in all this and they handled all sorts of shit poorlly. I just think this notion that a developer, publisher, PR, etc has to address every single thing that didn't make it into the final game in order to please gamers so that they don't get mislead is an unreasonable and unrealistic request.

In a lot of cases, we aren't talking about things said 3 years ago, but often just a few months leading into release. Plus, there was ample opportunity to discuss how things changed... which they did not do at all.

Obviously games change over time, everyone here knows that. Some features are tested and don't work out. But if those features are advertised in months leading to release, honest companies and developers let people know in advance.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Oh please. Let's not act like it's some sort of torture to explain why the dozens of sky-high claims they made weren't actually in the game. These people have made millions off of this game, if it takes a little digging to clarify statements that they didn't have to make in the first place I'm not gonna cry about it.

Also, it's not like we're whining about not being able to name your ship (even though he did promise that,) the dude said there were gonna be actual solar systems with accurately modeled gravity. He said you'd be able to fly into stars. He said there would be a wanted system that ratcheted up into bigger and bigger threats. These are huge things that would take months and months to program, and these guys know their game better than anyone else. If they're lying about it it's not a mistake.

Again, I'm strictly calling out the fact that he's asking for developers to address everything that didn't make it in or changed over time. That's unreasonable. I'm not saying address nothing, but to want a developer to address EVERYTHING is unrealistic. It's not a binary choice in this case. I'm addressing one aspect in that article that I think is an unreasonable expectation.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Don't buy a game you know nothing from independent sources about. No man's sky could have fulfilled everything mentioned in any interview and turn out to be a far worse game at the same time.

That's just shifting the burden to the consumer completely, and I find that unacceptable.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Again, I'm strictly calling out the fact that he's asking for developers to address everything that didn't make it in or changed over time. That's unreasonable. I'm not saying address nothing, but to want a developer to address EVERYTHING is unrealistic. It's not a binary choice in this case. I'm addressing one aspect in that article that I think is an unreasonable expectation.

There is a difference between saying, "See this amazing stuff? This is what is in the game and this is exactly how we did it! Other games don't even compare!" and, "These are the things that we are trying to implement however we can in time for launch. However nothing is going to make the cut until we are satisfied and are confident that the feature will meet our customers expectations so some stuff may have to wait till after launch but this is our vision and we are working hard on getting there."

When you say the former then yes, you should absolutely clarify in some capacity when things change/get cut, especially when you spout that stuff from huge and far reaching platforms in order to increase hype/sales.

When you handle it like the latter then people will be far more understanding when things change and don't make it at launch because you haven't set their expectations sky high along with the expectations that a $60 price tag brings.

We aren't out to flipping "get" all indies or devs in general. Sure, in some cases being transparent might be a little more work but in the end they are the ones who are receiving our money. As a business owner I know personally that if you keep your consumers in the dark or fib and mislead it is bad for business over the long run even if you keep selling to people far and wide who aren't informed about your shenanigans.

If devs where to be more transparent it would create a friendlier environment for both consumers and them. Therefore a healthier industry.

 

[00ich]

That's just shifting the burden to the consumer completely, and I find that unacceptable.

Games are creative works and as such they can't be described sufficiently by specs and norms.

No one is putting the burden on you. Just wait for the reception and make your decision afterwards.

 

[MacBosse]

Why? 99% of the people visiting the thread aren't going to read that.

Also, I really don't think it applies here. This is an indie developer. Sean Murray isn't a marketer for the game, he's a developer. One of the benefits seen in being an indie developer is you can throw away all that shit that goes along with working for a AAA developer, and this includes hyping up your game so much to the point where it cannot possibly live up to what you've promised.

And you certainly don't make every possible effort to dodge any questions regarding the aspects of the game you previously said existed. It's not just that he wasn't straightforward with us prior to the game's launch, but he's being even less straightforward now that the game's been out for a week.

Oh but he is. He really really is.

 

[Brianimaniac]

That's just shifting the burden to the consumer completely, and I find that unacceptable.

Then you're bringing problems on yourself by refusing to be pragmatic. No one is going to be sympathetic when that doesn't go your way. It's on you whether you accept it or not.

Pick better things to be stubbornly idealistic about.

 

[oSoLucky]

That's just shifting the burden to the consumer completely, and I find that unacceptable.

I feel like consumers should take some of the burden for what they spend their money on. People that want to sell something are going to use tactics to get that sold, be it bullshit interviews or bullshots. When discovered, there should be backlash but simultaneously, consumers can do much better on not being enablers for these types of tactics to flourish. It is human nature to want to avoid responsibility for out actions. Ironically, I think that's what is motivating Murray's silence. Unfortunately that goes completely counter wanting to be on blackout for a game and experience it completely fresh, but it's a risky train of thought.

 

[Cmagus]

Again, I'm strictly calling out the fact that he's asking for developers to address everything that didn't make it in or changed over time. That's unreasonable. I'm not saying address nothing, but to want a developer to address EVERYTHING is unrealistic. It's not a binary choice in this case. I'm addressing one aspect in that article that I think is an unreasonable expectation.

Then as a developer they shouldn't be promising anything until they know they can 100% do it and if anything should change then it's up to them to say something.Is it really that hard to be honest with the consumer nowadays, is it? is it hard to say when asked if multiplayer is gonna be in the game "We are working on it but aren't sure" or "We're having issues with it and it may not be in at launch" It's not just this game as well it's becoming so common with this hiding bullshit and how some devs can try to trick the consumer when they can't deliver on something.

In this case they didn't and kept being vague about everything and I mean you can't tell people something like multiplayer or whatever is gonna be in the game all while people are pre-ordering for months thinking this stuff is in the game and then a week before the game comes out put out a tweet saying don't expect multiplayer like you can't do that and expect that people will be happy about it.

This in no way should be the consumers problem, they marketed the game this way and I'm sorry but most people aren't gonna go scouring the internet for some interview that kind of says this or that.

They're still advertising the game on Steam using the old trailers which is not even the same stuff in the actual game so you can't say they don't know what they're doing, it's unfair to any consumer not following all this stuff. They made their money though so they will remain quite they have nothing to lose at this point.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

It's unreasonable for a PR person to do it too. The whole concept is unreasonable.

I mean ideally, you'd have a PR person or whatever on hand cataloguing every interview from the get go, rather than forcing them to go back after the fact and reevaluate old press events.

 

[ironcreed]

I'm bummed I enjoyed the game for what it was until this thread then I watched this complete trailer set that No Man's Sky's YouTube channel release a little under two months ago: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=orFgCah2r5k

I ran out of fingers and toes counting what is missing from the final game.

It seemed like it was going to be something special when I saw some of those massive worlds to land on for the first time. Then after spending enough time with it I was basically like:

over and over again.

 

[00ich]

I mean ideally, you'd have a PR person or whatever on hand cataloguing every interview from the get go, rather than forcing them to go back after the fact and reevaluate old press events.

From a PR standpoint Ideally you have a developer with a working development schedule. The big players seem to be very good at that these days.
They can schedule their conservative iterations of their PR features (usps) early in development so that they make it into the game no matter what and they already know that these features work because they spend a year on a prototype before making anything public.
That's why they can speak confidently about their game's features.

Hello games had probably nothing like this.

Does anybody remember a large project that announced at some point that important features didn't make it?

 

[BarringGaffner]

I'm bummed I enjoyed the game for what it was until this thread then I watched this complete trailer set that No Man's Sky's YouTube channel release a little under two months ago: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=orFgCah2r5k

I ran out of fingers and toes counting what is missing from the final game.

what game is that? honestly how the hell did it change so much from that trailer in 2-3 months!? crazy.

I'm with you, still enjoying it... but wow.

 

[Jac_Solar]

It's unreasonable for a PR person to do it too. The whole concept is unreasonable.

But, didn't the reddit list do exactly that?

Wouldn't it also be easy for a developer to keep a list of things they can speak publically about, and then go through the list close to release to compare?

 

[EatinOlives]

RPS is discussing this issue now, with a link to the Reddit thread
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/17/broken-promises-of-no-mans-sky/

Really good write-up. It's a measured response that highlights the issues with the promises without devolving into "MURRAY WAS A LIAR AND I HATE HIM!!"

What rubs me the wrong way with this game especially is that the marketing revolved quite heavily around the mystery, and thus there was an "artistic" merit to not revealing too much about the game's mechanical make-up. The problems started when this artistic veil was misused to hide very real mechanical deficiencies of the game. At that point the marketing felt like a cynical attempt at talking up a game into being part of a class in the industry in which it didn't belong.

The one problem I have is the notion that developers need to comb through years of interviews to write up a press release of everything that changed since they said it before they release the game. It's unreasonable.

Nobody knows the project better than the developer. They know first hand what they talk about and what gets taken out. It's easier for them to recognize when they've taken certain things out if they're interviews in national television, or trailers of major gaming press events.

EDIT: Reading the rest of your posts: I don't think people are expecting a wikipedia-level catalog of every single thing that remained or didn't remain. You can still do broad strokes in talking about cut features. People want a general gist of the scope of the game and what to expect, not necessarily an exhaustive list of all the commit notes. But like, if people are walking around in your game trying to figure out if your thing even has multiplayer on launch day, and you as a developer have known for months if not years that there is no multiplayer, there's definitely a fuckup in here.

 

[Speely]

It's unfortunate, because the actual game is not horrible. It's a pretty fun little indie game that does some cool stuff. The blatant lies just sour all of it. Like, completely, especially at 60 unrefundable bucks.

 

[Last Hearth]

It's really not that onerous a burden if the PR messaging was consistent and disciplined from the beginning.
It only looks like a impossible task if you had some spokesman who's been spouting anything and everything for three years and now need someone to come in and clean up the mess.

 

[Karak]

Worse, he's now completely silent. Noone likes feeling like they've been scammed, and then for the issue to go ignored makes it even more obnoxious.

Wait I thought he posted about working on the patch just recently?
Edit. Ah sorry I think I see you want an exact response gotcha.

 

[Rudimental]

Does anybody remember a large project that announced at some point that important features didn't make it?

Elite: Dangerous was going to have offline singleplayer. It was on the kickstarter, I believe. Then, shortly before launch it was announced that this was canned. There was an email sent to backers/pre-orders, iirc providing a technical explanation why (it would require maintaining two different iterations of the game, among other things), and refunds were granted for people who asked for them, having bought the game on this premise.

It wasn't handled ideally, all things considered, but compared to this it was handled much, much better.

 

[bj00rn_]

Elite: Dangerous was going to have offline singleplayer. It was on the kickstarter, I believe. Then, shortly before launch it was announced that this was canned. There was an email sent to backers/pre-orders, iirc providing a technical explanation why (it would require maintaining two different iterations of the game, among other things), and refunds were granted for people who asked for them, having bought the game on this premise.

It wasn't handled ideally, all things considered, but compared to this it was handled much, much better.

AFAIK, I might be wrong, they disclosed this with baked in apologies for why they did it before the game went 1.0, the complete opposite of the NMS scenario? Especially considering ED is a MP game with an alternative SP mode instead of the opposite, the game has a persistent online universe, even in the SP mode.

Edit 1: Yeah, I just checked, Frontier disclosed this to people about this a month before launch, which is not so short in comparison.
Edit 2: I guess you sort-of mentioned some of this already..

"Offline was initially not a planned feature when we went to Kickstarter," Braben confessed. "We said we were making an online game. But then there were some people on forums and on the Kickstarter saying it'd be really great to have offline. So then we looked at it and thought, 'Actually, why can't we just run [what we have offline]?

Slowly but surely, however, Braben and co realized an offline mode might not be as easy as they originally thought. On top of that, concerns of cheating and hacking in multiplayer

http://kotaku.com/despite-player-outcry-elite-dangerous-will-remain-alw-1668541301

 

[Zemm]

There's so many threads and so many posts that I can't keep up, so has Sean Murrayneux made a statement or anything yet?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

People's sympathy is limited when they're selling the game for the same amount that much larger studios sell their games at.

This, too.

That's just shifting the burden to the consumer completely, and I find that unacceptable.

Why is having to do your own research on a product you might spend a decent chunk of change on unacceptable?

Did Sean Murray fuck up? Yes.

But you were not forced at gunpoint to buy the game.

Like.

You actually wrote that. Amazing.

 

[Speely]

There's so many threads and so many posts that I can't keep up, so has Sean Murrayneux made a statement or anything yet?

Nope. It's la la la la la la land right now.

 

[lt519]

They definitely under delivered, but so did The Division, Destiny, etc. If they deliver on good content in free patches I can forgive them because they have the base for something special. If they quickly turn to paid DLC that's another story. Like any overly fan-hyped game the gamers are blowing it out if proportion.

Things are missing, key features, but as someone posted earlier a lot of the complaints are actually wrong. I saw desert locations today. As you upgrade your get access to different systems that have more exotics environments and fauna. There are big animals as well, check out the size of the guy in the background.

 

[Rudimental]

AFAIK, I might be wrong, they disclosed this with baked in apologies for why they did it before the game went 1.0, the complete opposite of the NMS scenario? Especially considering ED is a MP game with an alternative SP mode instead of the opposite. The game has a persistent online universe, even in the SP mode.

Edit: Yeah, I just checked, Frontier disclosed this to people about this a month before launch, which is not so short in comparison.

Yes. I thought the opposite case is what that poster was asking for an example of.

Initially there was going to be an offline single-player version, where players would have their own copy of the online universe. This is what was deemed unfeasible, I think. I have the email somewhere since I pre-ordered to get the Beta. The NMS case is the absolute extreme, though, and a month before launch is still short notice, especially given that this was a kickstarted game and many people had paid money in more than a year prior. A lot of complaints were about why they hadn't been notified about it earlier, since Frontier had to have known earlier. This just makes the NMS case all the more egregious.

 

[themadcowtipper]

There's so many threads and so many posts that I can't keep up, so has Sean Murrayneux made a statement or anything yet?

Perhaps he has, but the internet is so big no-one has discovered it yet...

 

[Sniffynose]

Holy crap I watched that 15 min video on what was implied vs real, and Jesus I had no idea how much he contradicted himself on just about everything and every time someone asked if x or y was in the game he just flat out said yes....

The part with it crashing non stop on streamers killed me because that's me, I don't even want to play again until it's fixed I'm sick of losing progress constantly.

The whole hype around the center is a cruel joke too.

I am dissapoint...

 

[Disgraced]

Perhaps he has, but the internet is so big no-one has discovered it yet...

👌👌👌

 

[CyclopsRock]

This, too.



Why is having to do your own research on a product you might spend a decent chunk of change on unacceptable?

Did Sean Murray fuck up? Yes.

But you were not forced at gunpoint to buy the game.

Like.

You actually wrote that. Amazing.

Surely listening to what the developer says is going to be in the game is part of that research, no?

 

[Jhn]

Perhaps he has, but the internet is so big no-one has discovered it yet...

I guess it's theoretically possible, but it's just so vast that the chances are next to zero.

 

[sviri]

Considering I was somewhat interested by the reveal and subsequent coverage, I sure as hell am glad that I did not buy this game.

 

[gingerbeardman]

Considering I was somewhat interested by the reveal and subsequent coverage, I sure as hell am glad that I did not buy this game.

.

 

[themadcowtipper]

Considering I was somewhat interested by the reveal and subsequent coverage, I sure as hell am glad that I did not buy this game.

According to many here and some gaming journalist it is the consumers fault...
Shame on me for believing the only footage released for the game was never ment to represent gameplay.

 

[Joelstinton14]

There are many people, myself included, who feel they have received the game that was advertised. I didn't follow everything about this game, but enough to justify a purchase.

They funny thing is, two weeks ago people were asking what you did in this game, yet now we suddenly have a list of things that apparently the game was meant to be. If you went back and looked at games that are released within the last few months/year, and looked at their trailers and development videos you could draw up a list of things that didn't make the games as well.

Game development is about compromise. It is governed by technical aspects as much as it by its artistic intentions.

We are in a position where people are trawling through every single interview hoping to catch the poor bloke out. That to me suggest this is more than simple criticism, and more in line with a typical boring gamer outrage. I didn't see many people citing the criticisms in the list until someone had written it out, and now it is suddenly Hello games this, hello games that.

I don't particularly like terms such as liar, molyenuex 2, etc because it is not criticism, it's abusive. If in 3 games time Murray still has the same accusations being thrown at his games, then yes, maybe we can have this discussion.

But at the moment you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a relative new face in the industry that was shoved into the spotlight, with strong ideas that should be celebrated. But instead, like gamers do, especially with hyped games, they really gone in for the kill, and i think that is really sad.

All i see is a Phil Fish mark 2, Jennifer Helper, Greg Zeschuk etc happening here. Customers are owed nothing.

It is fair to criticise the game, and there are many good posts in this page doing that, but i think there is a lot to celebrate in NMS.

There are a lot of things that Sean will learn from this, but i fall into the camp that some of the behaviour surrounding this is pretty low especially the blanket statements about Sean character, and yes i think this is blown way out of proportion.