This is one of those games that would have benefited from early access. The problem is that they wouldn't have sold as many copies of the game probably. So it came down to money versus PC quality. If it had come out in early access a lot more people would have known it wasn't the game for them. But, on the positive side they would have found out about a lot more of these issues.

As far as I understand, they had a small dev team, with no QA other than some QA from Sony, which likely was mainly testing the PS4 version heavily. They also screwed up with the minimum specs. They should have specifically stated the SSE4.1 and OpenGL 4.5 requirements, with a link to supported CPU/GPU's.

This makes sense, of course. But likely the process was: developed for PC, using sse trickery for search algorithms and world generation. Port-work on this to PS4 is non-existent, the amd build they have supports SSE in general, just without some specialization instruction sets that.. no one will use anyway. On top of that, the problems you run into with reduced thread response because of shared cache (on the bobcat and jaguar amd chipset, the last one is on the ps4) likely weren't an issue to getting it to run.

Then there are the curious extra functions and the shaders with the weird aliasing. This is just a qualified guess (since I can't confirm it), but likely this was added to the ps4 version later - this is just extend libraries for OpenGL running on the gpu functions, and Sony use them a lot. These functions are then likely ported back to the PC version, in the sense that the libraries are just built for a general platform target. Which works generally well enough, but is the kind of thing that will affect graphics cards with limited compute performance, or limited amounts of separate shader-units.

Not to get too deep into this, but functions like this that would run normally on an apu type processor may end up causing unpredictable run-time, as well as cause a well-known nvidia problem where the thread scheduler on even the newest and very solid cards can croak completely on compute tasks. This comes from the fact that they have fewer separate smx-units/shader-units, and therefore need to context switch between each operation. When these have to execute quickly, like every frame, then each frame depends on a very slow context switch at best, and you get thread starvation at worst. Lots of new games have this problem on these platforms, but generally things are picked up and "fixed" so they reach a 30fps target eventually on all cards, etc. Or Nvidia works with the developer and creates some other fix.

Middleware of various sorts tend to be involved, because separate threads feeding the gpu at the same time is "less efficient" than wrapping it through a rescue-library. And the more compute-based games we're going to see, the more problems like this will turn up - also on the top-end rigs. The mystery of why Pascal can absolutely dunk anything on single-thread, but will croak against AMD cards on compute is not actually a mystery, in other words.

But it's not a case of HG developing the game for 30fps on ps4 in 1280x720, and then porting it across. Also makes sense. But not really true either. There are things that are called "standards" that various cards and cpus can fulfill. Basically all PCs have the same minimum bus-speed, generally they have more performance than you need, you can predict functionality without ever testing one practically, and things of that sort. And nowadays the consoles from MS and Sony really are completely normal PCs.

On top of that, the "every PC is it's own platform" thing typically used to refer to the fact that all windows-installs acted differently and behaved in strange and curious ways depending on what peripheral cards and equipment you had plugged in. No developer ever developed a game for x86 through directx or OpenGL, and then had the core engine croak because of different bus-speeds or ram-timing, etc. So while the ps4s of course are identical, and their middleware can be tested to work with the platform, and so on - the actual benefit they were looking for is that they can run "PC code" without any porting work - that is, outside making their OS/sdk run in concert with the application.

Which on an abstract level actually is the same type of porting that had to be done earlier. Since it's one part compile job - even if you make small adjustments here, it's not going to take forever. And resources and tweaking has to be done anyway. And then there's the peripherals, the overlay, and ensuring response times, etc. Which is what takes most time. So from a technical point of view, porting a PC game to a PC-Ps4 is actually pretty complicated - in the same way as it was - since you need to run Sony's OS/sdk along with it. You mean, during the 2 month delay :D Like people suggested up there, Sony cares about getting the game to run in 1280x720 with anti-aliasing to smooth out the compressed shaders. They don't care that the PC version could run at much higher resolutions and framerates. This is, again, just guesswork. But from what we saw of the early demos, and from what I heard about test-runs on pretty abysmal hardware, they have added effects and shaders later on that .. may not have been very wise. Specially given the advertised minimum specs. Which, according to the ones I spoke to, wasn't actually a guess.

The problem HG runs into now, very likely, is that the ps4 and the PC build are very tightly knit together. Whether that's the gameplay tweaks (like the autopilot that prevents you from coming to within 100m of a crash, for example), or the visual tweaks (the weird shader package and the full-screen filters that hate higher resolutions). Also sounds logical. But it sort of doesn't seem like you've ever bought a game from Activision or EA before. :p Also sounds.. :p No, you have /some/ people who react in this way. They always do. The ones who are the most active on the intertron, the people who write articles and need to find a fully encompassing narrative that explains the release failures, etc. They always, no matter what title it is, blame any problems that turn up on "expectations were too high, the hype was too great, people expect a perfect game".

Most of us don't. Whether we are programmers or have some hobby-experience with developing games, or beta-test in our spare-time, or just buy games once in a while - we know that games have problems. If you're just writing articles, or have delivered a report at work, or even at school - you know exactly what's going on. You never get everything you want out on the deadline, and even if you're happy with something, you always look at a sentence and wonder what in the world you were doing when checking up on it later.

So whether you take the positivist approach and think that the game will eventually be patched to perfection, but won't be perfect at launch (or suggest the game would have been better if it was released in open beta, and developed feature-wise more fully -- which has merit. Starsystem map, waypoints, scripting for missions, etc. gives off the impression of being very limited and incomplete). Or if you have a more relaxed attitude that will make you happy as long as you can fly around and look at the planets, see the transitions between atmospheric and space-flight seamlessly, etc (this is me).

In either case, it's allowed to be annoyed when the game is delayed for two months, seemingly so that Sony's testers could add in an auto-pilot that prevents you from having fun. As well as that we're getting build-issues from the ps4 version surface treatment effects. That's not positive, no matter how you twist or turn it.

And it's kind of a crisis for HG, because they have - like said - marketed (and by all accounts also developed) the game for fairly low system specs.

I don't have a solution to this, of course. And I don't seriously expect HG to develop a separate PC test branch that rolls back any amount of changes made to the game in the last 5 months. But I really wish they did it anyway.

Hell, I wish they had done that 5 months ago. So they could have been spending time now on improving functions in the game, adding more fragmented story-missions and story-paths, implementing faction behaviour interference, and changing waterlevels, deforming terrain, event interference, asteroid belts that actually make sense, starchart functions, and so on and so forth.

But what we're getting instead is likely a feature-locked/cut down version that Sony deemed was tested well enough to reach a launch. And then that's going to be it. With some lipstick added on inside existing functionality later.

And this essay could be "AAA development in a nutshell", basically

You sound like you're having a whale of a time right now.

Imagine how much fun you'd be having if you spent all that time wasted on forums since 2008 on playing games and not arguing.

Well that's an extremely impolite and immature reply coming from a person who told me to be calm and mature. And it has absolutely nothing to do with topic and hand, not to mention it being somewhat hypocritical seeing you're also here and replying. I am still waiting for you to respond to my questions :-P

Would they make a lot less money? Right now they've made an inferior product, Sony gets a presumably not tiny cut and they lost a ton of goodwill with gaming community. If the team is 15 people large I'm pretty sure that even on lower price point and in early access, they'd be drowning in money by now.

-deleted-
Post was finally fixed... something something forum post problems.. this isn't needed here

Bloody hell settle down, you need to chill out and just enjoy things.

Saying things out loud doesn't make them true. There was nothing immature or impolite about my reply, presumably you see as something worse because it hit close to home. Well that's not my fault. I am here replying, but I evidently spend less time on forums than you and spend more of it having fun.

I've responded to whatever questions you may have asked me. Perhaps if you fussed less about completely meaningless internet arguments you'd be more content in life.

I'm not chill? Where did you get the impression that I'm angry or agitated this time around? I don't need to be angry to recognize a fallacious line of argumentation and to identify why is it fallacious. In fact that's more difficult to do when agitated or angry.

Well aside from it being completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, it was judgmental and patronizing, neither of these 'qualities' particularly desirable in a mature discussion.

You actually haven't. I assume there's some sort of misunderstanding here, so allow me to repost them:

"How is it immature to spend a few minutes on writing up an email to get money back on a product which isn't functioning as advertised?"

"Based on previous experience with gaming industry, why can't I calmly and maturely ask for a refund, as permitted by both GOG and Steam EULA, and buy a different game while waiting for developers to fix No Man's Sky?"

"And what exactly is aggravating about writing an email? I write several emails daily and I don't feel particularly aggravated. Am I doing something wrong, do I need to feel angry and yell at people when asking for refunds?"

See? All of these are relevant to the discussion and instead of replying you said:
That's not actually an answer, that's dodging. Which happens to be what you're still doing and yes, I do actually enjoy watching you figure out the next thing I'm doing wrong with my life because I asked for a refund and enjoy frequenting discussion boards, it was a rather funny line of thought to have brought up when you ran out of arguments.

Ok now I've gone from skimming your posts to full on shutting down. I didn't read this as my eyes are glazing over, more lengthy multiquotes, more mindnumbing aruging probably, more anger/frustration. This is not an ideal reaction to the suggestion of chilling.

You know what, I'm going to derail the thread now. :p

So just as an academic exercise, no right or wrong answer: if you reason yourself to some decision, but don't feel particularly agitated or emotional about it - then does the decision really matter? Even if you've decided it is the right thing to do?

FACT - You press E once to start the game (the first time and then never again)
Most software go into file then quit. NMS options then quit. (nope not good enough give me a refund)
These reasons are pathetic, try I don't like the game.
Why are you here? You don't have the game, you don't want to play the game. Do you go to all sites of games you don't have just to ridicule?
FACT - YOU are just being an asshole.

I don't think I possess sufficient qualifications to answer this question. Let's ask my bank account instead what does it think about this question.
"+ 1 581 CZK"
Oh boy, now that's a strong opinion!

I mean, realistically, it depends. I don't mind going trough the individual steps of going trough refund as it's no real hassle, but I do care about getting my money back. So yes, a decision does matter if you care about consequences.

In other words you can't counter-argue and are thus lying about not reading my posts to dodge my questions. That is very mature of you :-P

Uh are you trying to say logical thinking and outcome of a decision have no value..?
Sounds like you took acid while watching a special about the dark side of the force.

Given your lack of basic manners and preference for namecalling (I'm actually surprised how common personal attacks are in this forum?) you don't really deserve a reply, but since I won't let it be said that I can't argue my positions when I write them somewhere:

1) My friend (Software programmer and computer gamer since the early 90s) needed a google search to find out that E wasn't just the game being stuck at initializing. Obviously I am more trained by QTE type of games because I eventually figured it out without searching when he put me to the test. But, like it or not, a paying computer-literate customer had to go online to find an explanation how to launch his game. And then I (again, IT-Guy since 20 years and gamer even longer) had to spend 5 minutes looking for a way to close the game because no one expects it under "options".

So no, when people with experience in gaming need time to actually figure out how to start and quit your title (as also in evidence by the myriad of "Press E!" titled reviews on GOG), your interface is NOT good. Add to that the need to long-press the mouse button on standard menu items. Clearly these are things left from console port.

2) I plainly wrote why I came to this forum, so if you upgrade your reading skill you can answer the "Why are you here?" question yourself. But I guess you were more interested to throw an insult because my view of the game doesn't agree with your view of the game - meaning you have an ego invested in something to unimportant as other people's likes or dislikes about a computer title, which is a tad pathetic. (See, I can also insult people, but I can do it in a more clever manner than just writing "asshole").

No, was just asking the question.

But I think that if you are utterly dispassionate about your analysis, it likely has no relevance. Imagine a social science dissertation where the author couldn't care any less about the concerns of people living in poverty? A mathematician who doesn't think it's relevant if the formula they develop is useful for something. A philosopher who literally doesn't care if their work has any relevance to anything. A doctor who doesn't care about people's well-being.

So I'm a bit worried about the entire "it is good and likely means you are objective and correct - if you can be completely dispassionate when explaining your views" ideal we seem to be very fond of in "the west".

It's like.. Socrates was fed poison after being sentenced for sedition. "For corrupting the youth". Spinoza spited his church-community with his (brilliant) philosophical analysis, got excommunicated and condemned widely by the hebraic scholarly tradition he was educated in. Scientists claiming the earth was round, and proved it, were risking the wrath of the christian church for yonks. Hume, for example, was condemned by contemporaries for "godlessness", because his view on science (like that of Descartes) was that the superior heavenly being had no relevance. Machiavelli was tortured by his own employer, once it turned out he had been basically writing the manual for the methods of the Medici, and passed the work around as leaflets in Italian (rather than in latin, only for the elite. The differing versions with the updated historical examples make the satire even more obvious).

So it's not as if the people who fronted the most valuable thought-goods and scientific principles that survived for 100s of years were "dispassionate and objective", with the standard we hold as an ideal for any analyst or scientist today. But every one of them actively commented and engaged, passionately, to the point of political activism and even violence, in reacting to what was happening around them.

Before we've later lionized them all as thoughtful, passive and disengaged figures of eternal wisdom.

Things like that.