Is it fair to slam a game like that mere hours after release?
I guess the good thing is more people will stop pre-ordering games in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
No they won't. People keep saying the same thing after each bigger launch failure and yet they keep repeating.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't help that they post a thread on the steam forums that seems to be mostly for the PS4 version. Nowhere does it mention PC issues other than crashing.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/275850/discussions/7/360672137535537276/
Comment has been collapsed.
game got released earlier and played on PS4 ... and can't change that much anyway - so fair game
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it's fair, because they should have already tested it and have the bugs fixed.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know it's a good port when people have found libraries from the PS4 version in the files. 10/10.
Comment has been collapsed.
And the game window's title is "Application" lol.
Oh, and it crashes on Alt+tab.
And the worst. The interface. Clicking ion UI elements doesn't do anything. You have to maintain the mouse button down for about 1 sec to register (the mouse pointer animates during this period, if you let the mouse button go the animation doesn't finish and it's like if you didn't click anything, it's really really annoying, at first I though the UI didn't work)
Comment has been collapsed.
Even Early Access games should have higher standards. If game is in EA you expect it to not be finished, but to be working at least. They released the game that thousands of people cannot even launch ;P
Didn't help that while they spent years developing it they just announced that they hired QA team to test it TODAY. So they started testing the game properly after it launched, didn't think of doing it in years of development time ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
$60 and performance issues? It deserves ALL the negative reviews it gets regarding that issue. For content, well regarding the misdirection on marketing. Yes they deserve the negative review and hate on that front too.
Comment has been collapsed.
even better ;) I based this post on discussion topic I found after my game crashed and there were 20-40 topics of game crashing with up to few hundreds of replies in most popular. at the other hand I checked like 20-30min after release, so lots and lots of people didn't launch or even DL it yet, the further the more will be affected for sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone with an AMD Phenom II and FX-4000 CPU. Given that the former was the highest-selling gaming CPU in many countries (including mine, where IIRC the Phenom II X4 965 was the most popular CPU ever) outside the really rich regions, this means a loooooot of people. And requiring a CPU command set is not something you can just patch out. Or even fix without recompiling. So this issue may be permanent. This will anger people…
Comment has been collapsed.
Upgraded GPU literally just 2 weeks ago ;P so current specs:
| Minimum requirements | Zelg's Specs |
|---|---|
| Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit versions) | Win 7 Pro 64-bit |
| Intel Core i3 | Intel Core i5 650 |
| 8 GB RAM | 10 GB RAM |
| nVidia GTX 480, AMD Radeon 7870 | Radeon R9 290X |
Still not able to even launch the damn game ;p (well able to launch intro then it crashes ;p)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm. SSE4.1, since Intel has it for ages, and OpenGL 4.5 covered.
Since that is a soon 7-yo CPU, there still may be hardware level incompatibilities. Since Socket-1156 was discontinued a long time ago, you cannot even just jump CPU generations.
Oh yeah, this can be the start of a massive shitstorm.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just a starting fast storm. If they actually have to come clean and admit that the game will never run on quite a few chips, that could be massive. We are not talking about a "my GPU is not strong enough to run it over 20 fps" levels of requirements here, we are talking about "it won't start on a two-digit share of the current market" levels. If they didn't tell Sony that either, someone will blow their tops in Japan.
Comment has been collapsed.
you know what is the most outrageous for me? That it proves how little fucks they give about the PC market at all. These issues means that through whole development cycle they didn't bother with even the most basic QA at all. Because if it was just a performance issue it could be explained. Game could have been properly tested, something gets updated just before launch and can make it totally unstable, because there's no time for full regression tests anymore. But if the problem lies within hardware requirements, architecture requirements and they were not aware off it until know - it means that through whole development cycle noone even bothered to do the most basic compability tests. Even once. To test the prodect they charge 60$ for and intend to sell in millions of copies. This is simply beyond me... My fiancee works in QA and they does full-cover tests through more than 2/3rd of dev cycle for a freaking web aps for niche clients. And company developing premium product, product with such a hype, expecting to sell millions of units does less than a small QA team working on web app.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good point. makes me wonder that how much can be that Sony's fault as well. it seems they really just said they handle distribution and didn't bother to do anything with the devs, who made a rather… large rookie mistake.
I'm getting more to the point where I believe they made a gigantic mistake of positioning themselves into the AAA scene right from the start. Very few developers in history managed to do that. Even such legends as Carmack and Romero wrote low-grade sharewares for Apogee before they went on to large games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just writing with an update on my situation. I got a reply from Hello Games Support regarding my issue. Seems out that despite owning R9 290X which supports OpenGL 4.5 the game does not recognize my card as OpenGL 4.5 ready. The moment in-game test for OpenGL 4.5 happens it finds my card to be not supported (as false negative, because it should be counted as supported) and kicks me out of the game. They said they will be working on a fix, but fact of the matter is that 3.5 days after release I'd still not be able to launch the game while meeting spec requirements. Wouldn't be able I said, because I found a workaround. Using GLIntercept script I am sending fake positive to the OpenGL check, game launches and then is using OpenGL normally. But the fact of the matter is that normal user, not as tech savvy, would not be able to fix it as easilly as I was (and this as well only thanks to support explaining me where the actual problem lies). So while I am able to play now, most of other users with same problem won't be.
Also even despite running the game - it plays horrible so far. FPS drops to 12-14, also movement speed is bound to FPS it looks, so if I'm jumping over the big gap and get a sudden FPS drop my character slows down and I'm not able to make the jump for example. Most of the time to walk faster I am forced to look at the ground (then I get over 45 FPS), so even despite being able to fix the game myself (because officially it's still unfixed) it's not really in a playable state.
Comment has been collapsed.
A 290X as a non-4.5 compliant card? o.0
Really?! The RadeOn 7000 series supported OpenGL 4.5 since '14… -.-
As for the other: I never looked into the reasons, but games really like to tie physics calculations to frames instead of milliseconds. I assume it is either because of multiplayer or calculation streamlining/lag management, but it can lead to so many bugs…
sigh These are the reasons half the gaming industry just buys UE3 or uses Unity… >_>
Comment has been collapsed.
as for myultiplayer - it seems it was just a complete lie and they were well aware of it, yet still decide not to clarify things :> I think they were not aware that PC users nowadays are capable of datamining already compiled app ;p NeoGaf datamining (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1263009) shows that it's not the case of what they said that there's some bug which caused no MP interactions. The game files do not contain any folder or file that would indicate there is any sort of multiplayer in the game in the first place :>
Comment has been collapsed.
Hello Games uses Havoc for its physics
Ah, the reason for your mysterious velocity loss at low FPS.
Havok physics! Being shitty since 1999!
Seriously, the only reason it is not the worst choice is that NVidia wanted to milk this market as well and managed to turn PhysX into something even worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
well I had no "pleasure" of experiencing PhysX so far because my last 4 GPUs were all AMD/ATI ;p and while PhysX can be run of CPU it's written horribly for CPU (probably by intention on NVidia's part to force people into their GPUs) so after trying once or twice and getting massive FPS drops because of it (like from 60 to sub-20 FPS) I avoid using it at all cost ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Borderlands is usually the best place to showcase PhysX on NVidia cards. Want half of the loot, some of the actors, and sometimes the player drop through the floor and into a deathplane? Want to flip your car over for no apparent reason? Want to see some enemies fly into the sky or walk on air without ever touching them? Just turn on PhysX! (And enjoy the slideshow, because it drops frame rate even on NVidia GPUs.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a recompilation disabling SSE 4.1 code generation will fix it. That may have a performance impact, in that case they'll have to provide 2 executables, with and without SSE 4.1.
Unless they manually wrote that assembler code, in which case they'd need to re implement the portions that use SSE 4.1, but I doubt it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice. System requirements on Steam simply say 'Intel Core i3 and above', and to be fair all Intel CPUs i3 and up have SSE4.1. But my AMD CPU is more powerful than an i3 and I'm used to it being able to run new games on max settings, so I'd have been caught out without a specific mention of the problem. Although according to another forum I've seen the developers did tweet this requirement before launch...
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I don't think it's reasonable at all that somebody should be expected to check all of a developers social media to find out about these things before purchasing a major title. But it appears to mean they were aware of the problem before launch.
It could be interpreted as 'it won't work on many older AMD chips that remain fairly popular amongst gamers' but why not just say 'Intel Core i3 / AMD Phenom K10 and above (SSE 4.1 required)'. Most people (including me) would just read i3 and above as something at least as powerful as an i3 and something like a Phenom II 1055T would beat an i3 in most benchmark tests.
It's bollocks.
Comment has been collapsed.
The crappiest thing I've seen for a while. 60 bucks? Never!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm playing the game, enjoying it. 1½ hour so far (can't say much after that time other than that I'm enjoying the gameplay so far), but no errors whatsoever for me.
The first 30 seconds I had 24-30 FPS. Went to the menu, saw that the game was set for max 30 FPS. Switched to 60 fps, turned all other settings to max/ultra. Smooth 60 FPS ever since. GTX 980Ti though, but still weird that I got as low as 24 FPS the first 30 seconds. Might be that 30 FPS lock that was default that caused the issues since everything went away after I changed it.
Going to play some more, will report back later.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good man Tso. But I must say if many people are not able to play that they deserve the hate for not having found something the is preventing many people from playing. Glad you are in and enjoying it, fill us in more after some more play time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tried it on my other computer as well. Didn't have any trouble getting it to run, but it didn't run all too well. AMD FX-4300 / R9 380 / 4 GB RAM. Got between 30-45 FPS with the standard game, regardless of settings, and had some stutters when entering/exiting the spaceship which other people seem to experience as well. Tried the experimental patch, which got rid of the stutters, but with a constant 23 FPS, regardless of settings. I suspect it's the FX-4300 that limits the performance since the graphics settings do not affect the performance.
Tried the experimental patch with the i5 4670K / GTX 980Ti and it ran a tad better than before. Best thing was that alt-tabbing is now reliable, nothing to complain about at all.
If I only had my lower spec rig I would not be happy, but good thing it runs so well on my other computer, because I think the game is a lot of fun. I don't think it's for everyone, but for me it's excellent. I love arriving at a new planet, taking in the visuals, doing some relaxing exploration/mining, crafting some items needed and then moving on. It's a bit of the same gameplay all over each time you get to a new system/planet, so after the initial 10 hours where everything was new (I played almost 10 hours my first sitting) the game is best experienced as 1-2 hours of relaxing, casual gameplay each go. For me that means I can come back to it repeatedly.
Hope they continue improving the game with new patches so others can enjoy it as well, although I fear some people might have built up their expectations about what the game could do, and that they will be very disappointed with the actual gameplay because of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just tried it without V-Sync to see how the framerate differed between the original game and the patch:
Experimental patch:
On foot: 90-100 FPS
In ship: 80-110 FPS
Original game:
On foot: 80-110 FPS
In ship: 75-160 FPS
The patch lowers the framerate a bit, but makes it more stable. How much the framerate is lowered seems to depend on the system, as my lower spec system went from 30-45 to 23, while the higher spec one had all numbers above 60 = not noticeable with V-Sync, except for the few stutters that went away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Should have postponed it for a couple of weeks to make it work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, looks like it gets better:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1262187
Essentially, it won't work on an AMD Phenom II. Which is just one of the most popular and highest-selling gaming level CPUs in the past decade, especially outside the richest countries, so no biggie.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ofc it is you pay 60 euro for a end release not a Early Acces game.Developers in this days think they can put potato in a box called game and release it and people will buy and say ok its fine...Im just a guy who remember days when developer released game was a end game product not a unoptimized potato.Now we got X-MORE games released every week but 90% of them are crap / unoptimized / not finished or even abandon right after release.Same problem i got with Fallout 4 i cant play without fps stuttering on i7, 32GB ram , SSD GeForce GTX 970 since release and still game run like a crap i tried many fixes (official / unofficial) many official patches comes out and still i cant play game which cost me 59.99 euro and its fair?
Comment has been collapsed.
At least we're going to get some quality memes from this mess.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you sell a game, you should be open to critique & reviews no matter if theyre positive or negative.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hrmm... How can you play enough to really give a full review? It may need a lot of patches before it's a solid game as well. Lots of new games are really buggy, and I really think it's silly to give a review before you've experienced a game the way it should be played, and played enough of it to really give a complete review.
Maybe give it some time for patching, if it's technical issues that are the problem. On the other side, if it is so bad you can't really find anything good about it, then give an early negative, and wait on it to give a second edit later. If a game is out for a while, and there has been no work done, then I think it's perfectly fine to give a negative based on a game needing more patching/technical issues. Maybe just giving it a chance and letting the masses give their complaints (I suppose through reviews even, but that's a bit hypocritical for me to say since my stance is a no), so hopefully they'll be quick to fix/work on the issues if people are having problems.
I personally would wait if I couldn't do anything on the game, and if I could not after a week, then I'd put some info up about my problems. If I see a developer working on something regularly after it's released (mainly talking about Early Access) then that's a great thing, since it shows concern, even if the game is unplayable... so I have to give games the benefit of the doubt. If I cannot play it weeks later or months later, then I have a serious problem. Still, it should be a playable game by the time it is released. Especially if it's a hyped and anticipated title that costs AAA price ($40 - 60+).
Games like this are put under a microscope, since there is so much interest. They really should deliver, but I say cut them some slack, or amend stuff after a week or two if they fix whatever the issues are.
I'm hoping it gets slammed enough that it becomes REASONABLY PRICED for what it is. I'm getting it when it's $20 and then goes on a big sale... though with all the people that got sucked into the hype.... that's not happening any time soon, if ever. Maybe that's part of the problem too, but eh, if you have money to spend and you want it, can't argue with the demand... :D
Comment has been collapsed.
then the game shouldn't be released. Once upon a time most bugs were ironed out before release, but thanks to the internet, developers can release what should really be a beta version, generate sales and collect money early, and maybe get around to fixing things (or maybe not)
We as consumers shouldn't have to accept faulty products. Can you imagine if every table Ikea sold was missing a leg, "but we'll mail it to you in 2-4 weeks".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I totally agree. You should get what you pay for. I still think people are impatient, since things can go wrong, and it's not like every table is missing a leg since some people are playing it fine.
I am patient with stuff, and okay if things are not right straight off the bat... It happens and I have plenty to play if I can't get to one thing or another. I don't have to be the first to finish, or experience something. Doesn't bother me usually... But yeah, at $60 it should be right. I loved the glitches with Bethesda's stuff during the first week, and it always made me laugh like crazy with some of the crazy stuff that happened pre-patch.... and they were $60, but no big deal if I absolutely could not play. Then again, on console Skyrim, I had to restart my game when I got so far that some questlines were broken and there was no way to fix it.
Fun replaying though... the world did not end, but yeah... Tamriel did end on that file.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'm in agreement with EA too. You should get games for free if they are not ready for release. You are basically paying them to do a job somebody else should be doing... Strange people do "buy into it" regularly just to see what a game is about before it is "complete"...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I can see some old man telling his grand kids about the thing called beta testing, giving the whole "When I was your age" speech. I've gotten a few for free to try to review, and I just couldn't give a positive review at the time. One dev even revoked my key through Steam itself, and I am assuming it is because I wasn't willing to write a favorable review. That's the strange thing. I wanted to continue to work with the game until it was good enough, since I thought it had potential, and I was interested in it... but when you can't even save, and you need to reload the game because you get trails from where you go that don't go away on your screen of view that block out everything (hard to explain), you can't really "marathon" it to see what it's all about. It has all kinds of other problems too, but pretty immature to revoke keys because people are not giving positive reviews...
Comment has been collapsed.
wow, no, I'm talking about an earlier era. Back when it wasn't really possible to distribute patches, so games had to be more-or-less perfect.
Alpha testing was when the game barely worked (like what you described), and often the graphics were wire-frame (or sometimes non-existent).
Beta testing was when the game was more or less done, and it was their task to break the game (say, by parsing a command like "put the moon up the cow's ass")
By the time beta testing was done, there'd barely be any noticeable bugs
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I knew what you meant.
I didn't do a good job separating the two thoughts, since it had very little to do with beta testing and more about these days and Early Access. I was simply mentioning a situation that happened with me and early access. It would have fit better with the previous statement about not liking EA. Games like Stardew Valley took a long time to get out there (I followed its development for around 3 years I think), but CA did pretty well getting a finished product out there that worked well right off. There were a few things that happened to people that had to be fixed early in it, like being "stuck" while creating certain things, or having the building issues when you placed them, small exploits, etc. etc. but I guess in all fairness a lot of games have a lot more going on these days too with all the ideas people have come up with. Still yes, games of old had to be almost flawless, since it was not really possible to do much with the products once they were finished. Today, there are a lot of things out there that are broken Steam, and they are left that way. It's pretty sad when someone points something out, and it is not even acknowledged, much less fixed.
Just bouncing off of your commentary though, and creating my own. Nothing more. I enjoy blabbing is all. I don't really have any investment in this "No Man's Sky" game, nor have I really followed it at all. I don't care about that sort of stuff for the most part... I've only seen the Steam page, and that's basically as far as my interest or understanding goes. It was on my wishlist because of that, but I would not pay $60 for most stuff these days... it's not like it used to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
They have been waiting for this game for two years now. Or maybe three? It has been postponed on the PC for an additional 3 days after a seemingly successful launch on PS4. I think the disappointment can be understood, considering that it is not buggy, it is refusing to work for many.
Comment has been collapsed.
if you buy (or win) a 60$ game and you cannot even launch it - it's fully reasonable to write a negative review and to warn others about the purchase. How can I experience the game "enough" to give it a "fair" review if I cannot even launch it as it cvrashes right after title screen? Writing a negative review for a AAA priced game (but any game tbh) which cannot even be launched is fully justified thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's why I'm on the fence sorta... A $60 non-Early Access game should run reasonably well on release. As long as it is a review about the performance and not saying the game itself is bad because of it, a fair warning to others is a reasonable thing to do. I guess my only gripe is a lot of impatient people that may not give it a chance to be fixed when some people are running it reasonably well. But yeah, I think the majority seem to be having a lot of issues, so the people who made this need to get it working for those with problems, and get on it quick!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a little late here but nevermind.
Unless there is some serious issue with the game, it's indeed stupid to leave a negative comment, but we're on the internet - people throw around subjective sh*t instead of trying to evaluate a game objectively. There are games I don't like but they are great ones without a doubt, and would recomment it to likers of the genre.
Btw it was hilarious on release day. Game barely starting, who can start usually complained it being empty and soulless, then the fanboys arrived with reviews like " Idk what's the problem you all, but it runs for me" *recommended* People like them deserve eachother :D
Comment has been collapsed.
well - I call game crashing at start (and issue is still there - I managed to bypass the problem myself, but in quite complicated way that most users won't be able to duplicate) a serious issue with the game ;) Same as people having hell of the rigs - like i7s, SLI 1080s, 16 gig RAM etc having serious performance issues. It's not the case of subjective reasons like someone not liking the genre thus leaving negative review, it's case of game not working which is objective reason for negative review ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
When a game goes for $60, you better make it actually load.
Though I did find a streamer on Twitch that actually plays it on PC and it seems to run great.
I thought about buying it but after the reviews, I am not touching it unless they decide to discount the price or update and fix the problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you think its fair slamming a game into the ground not even an hour after release for performance issues rather than game content?
game content is a matter of taste. different people may like different things. But performance issues are universal. If a game is unplayable, it sucks, no matter what the content.
Comment has been collapsed.
29 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Atombomb2097
315 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by coleypollockfilet
202 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Dawnslayer
34 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Icepick87
156 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by marilynhanson
15,558 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by devotee
1,123 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by Gamy7
99 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by benn07
59 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by MagisterX
24 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Mayanaise
43 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Elrinda
5 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Mayanaise
8 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by Fluffster
160 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by lav29
Edit: Holy crap, over 16,000 negative reviews now.
store link
The game got 2,000+ negative reviews mostly dealing with crashes and performance problems.
I don't remember seeing so much hate since Batman and Just Cause 3.
But for some reason for no man's sky I feel bad because its a small team and seems like they've been through alot of legal hell and general other development roadbumps before release.
It makes me a little sad seeing so much hate for performance issues, those can (hopefully) be fixed rather quickly.
Like, come on angry mob, give the little space guy a chance D:
Do you think its fair slamming a game into the ground not even an hour after release for performance issues rather than game content?
Comment has been collapsed.