UPDATED: Report: No Man's Sky Release Date Delayed

[ffronw]

UPDATED: Report: No Man's Sky Release Date Delayed

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1324/1324894.jpg

UPDATE: Sony has updated the official PS4 No Man's Sky page [https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/no-mans-sky-ps4/] with a new release date of August 9, 2016. Looks like the delay is real.



ORIGINAL STORY: The word is that procedurally generated space exploration title No Man's Sky has been delayed from its June release.

If you've been looking forward to blasting off and exploring the massive open universe that No Man's Sky is promising, your wait may be a bit longer than you'd hoped. According to a report on Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/sources-no-mans-sky-delayed-1778797365], multiple source have informed the site that the game has been delayed into July or August.

While one source is simply referred to as "A reliable Kotaku source," the other is identified as working at GameStop. That second source said that while the store had received marketing materials for the game that showed the No Man's Sky release date as June 21, the stores were also told to cover that date with a "Coming Soon" sticker, as it was no longer accurate.

No Man's Sky is an ambitious game from a relatively small developer, so a delay wouldn't be the biggest shock in the world. I'm sure that gamers would rather end up with a good game a couple of months late than a broken game that releases on time.

Permalink

 

[ShakerSilver]

Maybe they're hoping to add some actual substance to the game beyond bare-bones combat and exploration. :^)

 

[Jadak]

I'm sure that gamers would rather end up with a good game a couple of months late than a broken game that releases on time.

Sure, but better than both those options is posting a release date for your game that you can actually meet with a non-broken game.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

To be fair does anyone expect this game to be a genre-defining amazing masterclass game it claims to be?

 

[bluegate]

To be fair does anyone expect this game to be a genre-defining amazing masterclass game it claims to be?

That the game claims it to be, or that hyped fans claim it to be?

 

[thewatergamer]

Maybe they realized that releasing a barebones game with a somewhat interesting premise probably wouldn't work

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm sure that gamers would rather end up with a good game a couple of months late than a broken game that releases on time.

Sure, but better than both those options is posting a release date for your game that you can actually meet with a non-broken game.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm glad they are not releasing it broken, but at the same time, I feel companies shouldn't put a release date forward unless they KNOW they can make that date. Not think, not hope, not even "feel confident", but know.

 

[flying_whimsy]

For a second there I had this confused with Hyper Light Drifter (a game I'm actually excited about getting).

No Man's Sky looks cool, but there's only so much you can do with a randomly generated sandbox (even if it is in spaaaace). Minecraft had the creative and multiplayer aspects to give it some substance, neither of which look to be present in any meaningful way in this game. If anything, this actually reminds me of Spore. Lots of ambition, but the end goal of the project isn't really something to get worked up about.

It's too bad, because the title was almost enough to make me buy the game on its own: poetic and oddly compelling. A story focused on a struggle for freedom where flight and space are the only place you can't be controlled would have been awesome with that massive universe as a backdrop. Something of a spiritual successor to Tachyon: the Fringe.

 

[ffronw]

I'm sure that gamers would rather end up with a good game a couple of months late than a broken game that releases on time.

Sure, but better than both those options is posting a release date for your game that you can actually meet with a non-broken game.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm glad they are not releasing it broken, but at the same time, I feel companies shouldn't put a release date forward unless they KNOW they can make that date. Not think, not hope, not even "feel confident", but know.

I agree with both of these sentiments, but I also know that sometimes in game development, shit happens. Things don't materialize on time, you can't hunt down some elusive bug, or something breaks down in the process. It sucks, but it happens.

That said, I'm not excited about this game. It looks like it's really broad, but very shallow. You know, the sort of thing that is fun for about a week, and then boring as hell thereafter.

 

[shrekfan246]

Maybe they're hoping to add some actual substance to the game beyond bare-bones combat and exploration. :^)

I think it says something that, as far as I'm aware, everyone is still asking what the game actually is. Like, yeah, we know it'll supposedly have a huge galaxy that you can explore at your leisure and apparently find all sorts of wild things, but why? What's the point? Is it supposed to just be like Minecraft, and if so why don't they just say that it's an open sandbox for the player to do as they wish? Though, again, I don't know if the mechanics of the game (that we've seen, at least) really provide enough for players to keep the game alive like Minecraft.

I guess I applaud them for actually keeping something a mystery in this age, but I can't help thinking that it is just because there's nothing for them to show.

 

[K12]

Who's shocked... anyone... no.

If there's one thing this game needs it's to give itself even fewer excuses for when it massively disappoints everybody.

I'd be absolutely delighted to be wrong but I refuse to have any kind of positive anticipation for a game that has been this secretive about nearly everything in it (except that it's really big and looks nice).

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I agree with both of these sentiments, but I also know that sometimes in game development, shit happens. Things don't materialize on time, you can't hunt down some elusive bug, or something breaks down in the process. It sucks, but it happens.

That said, I'm not excited about this game. It looks like it's really broad, but very shallow. You know, the sort of thing that is fun for about a week, and then boring as hell thereafter.

This. It is incredibly difficult to get a good projection on the release date, and in general, if you meet the date it's only because you've cut a lot of content or refinement from the game. Almost no game is completed without a large backlog of features they had to remove because of time or money constraints.

I'm particularly disappointed about this change, however, because it was originally coming out right around my birthday

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Like, yeah, we know it'll supposedly have a huge galaxy that you can explore at your leisure and apparently find all sorts of wild things, but why?

The soft goal of the game, is to get to the center of the Galaxy. Exploration is one of the several means of gathering money, and resources to create upgrades, which you need to get better equipped ships, fuel to travel with them, and improve your space suit to survive hazardous conditions, and things become more dangerous the closer to the center you get, necessitating the need for more powerful ships and more capable equipment.

There's alien races to interact with, which you have to learn their language to communicate with. Some may be peaceful and be willing to trade, others not so much. And background lore to learn about the ingame universe.

What's the point?

To get to the center of the Galaxy. Otherwise, whatever suits your fancy.

Is it supposed to just be like Minecraft, and if so why don't they just say that it's an open sandbox for the player to do as they wish?

From what I know, it's explicitly not like Minecraft. You can't build anything for example. The devs say the game is heavily centered around survival, where dying is supposedly very easy and punishing.

OT: No official word from the developers if this is real or not. Just a unnamed "source" from a single news outlet the entire news spectrum is citing. I'll wait and see if it's true or not. Then again, the developers have always had terrible PR. I guess it's either true, or not. We'll see.

 

[shrekfan246]

Like, yeah, we know it'll supposedly have a huge galaxy that you can explore at your leisure and apparently find all sorts of wild things, but why?

The soft goal of the game, is to get to the center of the Galaxy. Exploration is one of the several means of gathering money, and resources to create upgrades, which you need to get better equipped ships, fuel to travel with them, and improve your space suit to survive hazardous conditions.

There's alien races to interact with, which you have to learn their language to communicate with. Some may be peaceful and be willing to trade, others not so much. And background lore to learn about the ingame universe.

That doesn't actually answer my question. That gives me a goal, but no explanation or motivation.

What's the point?

To get to the center of the Galaxy. Otherwise, whatever suits your fancy.

Is it supposed to just be like Minecraft, and if so why don't they just say that it's an open sandbox for the player to do as they wish?

From what I know, it's explicitly not like Minecraft. You can't build anything for example. The devs say the game is heavily centered around survival, where dying is supposedly very easy and punishing.

These two statements seem to be in opposition, at least in response to what I meant. I wasn't using Minecraft as an example of the gameplay No Man's Sky would have, I was using it as an example of what I believe to be one of the only truly "sandbox" sandbox games out there. You're thrown into a world, given a vague goal (find the Ender Dragon and kill it), and then sent on your way to do anything you want, up to and including reshaping the world itself to better suit your wishes. Now, that last part might not necessarily be in No Man's Sky, but Minecraft is pretty heavily based around survival, too, and dying is remarkably easy and potentially very punishing (depending on where you are, what you're carrying, how secure your base is, and so on).

Obviously in terms of actual gameplay No Man's Sky would be more, what, X[sup]3[/sup], Elite: Dangerous, Evochron Mercenary, or Salvation: Prophecy, but they haven't shown anything (that I've seen, at least, but I'll admit I'm not following it that closely) that actually provides us with any sort of reason to do any of that exploration/upgrading stuff.

I like the idea of open-ended gameplay, but I haven't seen a game that can do it well enough that I don't end up feeling bored by repetition after a few hours.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Maybe they're hoping to add some actual substance to the game beyond bare-bones combat and exploration. :^)

I think it says something that, as far as I'm aware, everyone is still asking what the game actually is. Like, yeah, we know it'll supposedly have a huge galaxy that you can explore at your leisure and apparently find all sorts of wild things, but why? What's the point? Is it supposed to just be like Minecraft, and if so why don't they just say that it's an open sandbox for the player to do as they wish? Though, again, I don't know if the mechanics of the game (that we've seen, at least) really provide enough for players to keep the game alive like Minecraft.

I guess I applaud them for actually keeping something a mystery in this age, but I can't help thinking that it is just because there's nothing for them to show.

This. All of this.

This game seems to be following the footsteps of Starbound. Infinite possibilities in terms of planets and inhabitants, but no real reason to explore it other than "because you can."

On of the Steam reviews put it perfectly "It's a base building game where I have no need for a base. It's a survival game where the universe isn't trying to kill me. It's an exploration game where I can't swindle the natives blind. It's a problemsolving game where I can't use lava to smash my way through a dungeon. It's such a MESS now."

And considering that Starbound has been in early access since 2013, I'll hold my breath on what's basically the 3D version of it.

 

[EbonBehelit]

I think the devs discovered they were supposed to put a game in their game, and promptly panicked.

 

[Zulnam]

As long as they get it done right on the first go and don't fix the game seven months later.

Unlike OTHER devs/publishers.

 

[weirdee]

Maybe they're hoping to add some actual substance to the game beyond bare-bones combat and exploration. :^)

I think it says something that, as far as I'm aware, everyone is still asking what the game actually is. Like, yeah, we know it'll supposedly have a huge galaxy that you can explore at your leisure and apparently find all sorts of wild things, but why? What's the point? Is it supposed to just be like Minecraft, and if so why don't they just say that it's an open sandbox for the player to do as they wish? Though, again, I don't know if the mechanics of the game (that we've seen, at least) really provide enough for players to keep the game alive like Minecraft.

I guess I applaud them for actually keeping something a mystery in this age, but I can't help thinking that it is just because there's nothing for them to show.

This. All of this.

This game seems to be following the footsteps of Starbound. Infinite possibilities in terms of planets and inhabitants, but no real reason to explore it other than "because you can."

On of the Steam reviews put it perfectly "It's a base building game where I have no need for a base. It's a survival game where the universe isn't trying to kill me. It's an exploration game where I can't swindle the natives blind. It's a problemsolving game where I can't use lava to smash my way through a dungeon. It's such a MESS now."

And considering that Starbound has been in early access since 2013, I'll hold my breath on what's basically the 3D version of it.

The parallels are there, but Starbound's main issue was that the open development style was open to scrutiny 24/7, even though its development cycle was fairly typical for a game of that scope and size (three years for a game with thousands of interacting objects), which means that despite being told what was going on in order to develop a game with all of these features (that works without exploding, in online multiplayer), funders had unrealistic expectations and exerted more pressure to release earlier and post specific dates. Chucklefish may have caused some of the issues with the office move and the inefficient hiring practices, but for the most part it was the fairly typical churn of prototyping game systems and constant reshaping of the game as the project progressed. At least they're planning to release a WHOLE game, unlike certain other crowdfunding "darlings". And they actually used the alpha and beta phase descriptors like they should have: to describe the states of the game where it wasn't feature complete, or actually polished enough for release, and have actual goal posts to reach on a design document.

The problem here is that Nomansky didn't have to create this much hype this early, which isn't the same situation for a crowdfunding game, which runs on promises which are difficult to explain to anybody except fans of older games.

For the record, Starbound now has systems in place where you build NPC settlements that are attacked, and you can in fact siphon and eject lava, although the dungeon itself is impervious to damage until the area is cleared, so such a tactic (which is overused and boring, by the way) would barely benefit the player. The review is probably extremely old if they're not mentioning any of the features that now comprise what is approaching a release version this year.

 

[Vigormortis]

That said, I'm not excited about this game. It looks like it's really broad, but very shallow. You know, the sort of thing that is fun for about a week, and then boring as hell thereafter.

So, every Bethesda RPG ever, including Elder Scrolls and Fallout?

"Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle."

snip

I can't help but think on DOOM. This board[footnote]Save for B-Cell...[/footnote] was virtually nothing but unbridled, jaded disgust towards the prospect of the game, even before the Beta. It was all, "It looks so dull, generic, and boring. All this stuff looks lame." I read the criticisms and wondered if people were seeing the same game as I was. I wondered if people were even aware of what had been revealed about it, because many of the criticisms seemed absurd.

Then the game came out and was met with uproarious praise. Everyone acted surprised at what it was, which confused me. ID and Bethesda had shown much of what was in the game leading up to the its release. They revealed so much, in fact, that I wondered how anyone could be so surprised by what the final game turned out to be. What it is was on display for months.

And now I can't help but feel the same thing is happening to No Man's Sky. The question is always, "But what do you DO?!" Even when someone, including the devs, provide an answer to the question, it's still met with, "Yeah, but, what do you DO?!"

It's like if someone explained the premise of Fallout 4 and I asked, "Okay, but what do you actually do in the game?" Then that person explains the gunplay, and I ask, "Alright, but what does that mean? What do you do with it?" They then explain the side quest structure, and I again ask, "Right, but what's the point? What's it all lead to? What do you do?"

I might be going out on a limb here, but perhaps a game like No Man's Sky just isn't for everyone. Maybe it's just not made to suit every taste. Which leads me to wonder why so many feel compelled to act as though it should be. To act as though they need to lambast the game for not having the exact specifications they want. It's like me complaining that a racing game doesn't have enough arena shooter elements to it.

Sometimes exploration is the point. It may not be interesting to everyone, but there are people out there who do find that interesting. And if No Man's Sky turns out to only be about exploration, then those people will be satisfied.

Not every game has to be for everyone, but pretending that what's been revealed somehow doesn't exist is just ridiculous.

"What do you do?" You wonder why people are wasting so much of their time complaining about a game they don't care about.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*snip*

I strongly suspect that the quality of this game is going to very much come down to how well it's tuned. Is the procedural generation varied enough to make every new planet feel different in a meaningful sense? Is the gameplay fun enough to entertain you for how ever many hours you're going to put into it? Are the goals and rewards tangible enough to keep making you want to come back for more?

I'm excited for this game, and I very much want it to turn out to be good, but games like this have a lot of hurdles to jump over to work well. The most depressing thing to happen with this game would be to play for an hour, be amazed with the environments and then just think "Okay, what motivation do I have to keep playing". Some nebulous goal to get to the center of the universe might work in the long term, but you need bite sized goals to keep you going as you work towards that. I'll be thrilled if they pull it off, but with totally unscripted games like this it's more difficult of a thing to get right. What I saw so far about resource collection didn't inspire much faith in me, though I'm not going to go all doomsayer just over that.

Either way, if they haven't got the tuning just right, I'd much rather them push back the release date until they figure it out.