I'd bet that Subnautica will not be $20 when it's done... and IMO it shouldn't be. With new games typically retailing at $60 these days, there's no reason for the devs to sell cheap for a quality product they've put all this time and effort into. We all got it at $20, but we have to deal with all the bugs during the development process, and we provide the devs with essentially free playtesting, while also helping to fund the development with that $20. So it's a win-win - we get an awesome game cheap, they get the funds and the feedback. But when it's all done and polished, I expect the game will be at least $40, and if it's only $40, then I think it'd be a great bargain.
I've wondered about this myself, a game this polished and fun (in pre-release no less!) won't retail for $20 for sure. I kinda hope that players who bought into early access can get a small discount when the game launches, or some kind of bonus content for supporting the game. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely buying it regardless when it launches, as it has been a wonderful experience and money well spent.
P.S. I know there's a Cutefish pet bonus coming for Early Access players, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
If you got it in Early Access you don't need to "re-buy" the Game when it releases; you have it; it's yours forever, and that's a steal!
Hehe yeah it also says it right on the store page as well (or rather Steam's FAQ). I've seen more people on other games as well ask about this, are there devs out there who actually make you repurchase the full game when it goes gold? I for one haven't seen anyone do that, so I'm kinda surprised people even think this...
Yeah, but the devs have come out and said for Subnautica that Multiplayer isn't in the works and it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all, rather than Hello Games's answer of "Yeah, sure, but not really"
I'd bet that Subnautica will not be $20 when it's done... and IMO it shouldn't be. With new games typically retailing at $60 these days, there's no reason for the devs to sell cheap for a quality product they've put all this time and effort into. We all got it at $20, but we have to deal with all the bugs during the development process, and we provide the devs with essentially free playtesting, while also helping to fund the development with that $20. So it's a win-win - we get an awesome game cheap, they get the funds and the feedback. But when it's all done and polished, I expect the game will be at least $40, and if it's only $40, then I think it'd be a great bargain.
I've wondered about this myself, a game this polished and fun (in pre-release no less!) won't retail for $20 for sure. I kinda hope that players who bought into early access can get a small discount when the game launches, or some kind of bonus content for supporting the game. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely buying it regardless when it launches, as it has been a wonderful experience and money well spent.
P.S. I know there's a Cutefish pet bonus coming for Early Access players, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
If you got it in Early Access you don't need to "re-buy" the Game when it releases; you have it; it's yours forever, and that's a steal!
Hehe yeah it also says it right on the store page as well (or rather Steam's FAQ). I've seen more people on other games as well ask about this, are there devs out there who actually make you repurchase the full game when it goes gold? I for one haven't seen anyone do that, so I'm kinda surprised people even think this...
I heard that they might do a Kickstarter for the game. If so, I'll probably just donate $40 for the effort they've put in.
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
It only has more content because its a "finished" (I use that term lightly) game. Subnautica will undoubtedly have more content than NMS at launch. As for replayability, NMS just resets your game when you reach the end. That's it. Very replayable.
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
Lol, nope. 100 identical books don't have more content than 10 different ones. Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end.
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
Lol, nope. 100 identical books don't have more content than 10 different ones. Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end.
I don't see how this can be true if games such as the ones I listed are still some of the biggest games out there?
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
Lol, nope. 100 identical books don't have more content than 10 different ones. Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end.
I don't see how this can be true if games such as the ones I listed are still some of the biggest games out there?
Apples and oranges. Multiplayer and single player. Completely different gameplay focus.
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
If you feel that way, that's okay. However, we're not the only one's "bashing" it; there's a tonne of people out there who feel like they got shafted when they purchased NMS--and they damn well have a right to feel that way, because there was a sh-tload of stuff that was promised for No Man's Sky but Hello Games never delivered. They. Never. Delivered.
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
Lol, nope. 100 identical books don't have more content than 10 different ones. Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end.
I don't see how this can be true if games such as the ones I listed are still some of the biggest games out there?
Apples and oranges. Multiplayer and single player. Completely different gameplay focus.
I was talking about " Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end. "
@Coranth, I mean the game itself not all the controversy around it (that is what this thread is about, right?)
I have both, but only because i had an offer to collect at GOG, i would not have paid £40 for it, but i was curious, i played NMS for a couple of days, maybe 20 hrs or so, i found it to be repetitive and all about pointing a gun and mining, exploration was boring, and most worlds were similar with same stuff repeating as the last worlds i had seen. Ship flight mechanics were very poor, all ships were the same apart from looking different and a different slot value. All stations looked the same, and i just saw no reason to go further in the game as after warping to a new galaxy, it was just same old stuff as last one.
In Subnautica there is more of an atmosphere, and more reason to progress in game, collecting is much better and for a better reason, i care about my world, my bases, and i can modify my ships ect, add things to my home base. Overall Subnautica is just miles better than NMS in every way, so much that i now have over 127 hrs in this game over the last few weeks.
Of all the things i dislike most in NMS, space combat comes first. Ship control fells dull. When i was playing Freelancer with the Discovery Mod, it took a great deal to be a good pilot, its not just about aiming right at your target, you had to know your ship manoeuvring capabilities and button combinations that would allow a pilot to make special manoeuvres, these took some time to master in combat.
There were 6 main ship classes, fighters, bombers, gunships, gunboats, cruisers and battleships and everyone of them had its weaknesses, but in NMS none of this has been idealized or put together in a way that makes sense, in some NMS presentation i saw fighters striking battleships using simple cannons, this would have never been possible without the use of bombers with powerful ordnance.
Freelancer belongs to the same universe as Starlancer hopefully both these titles have been written by the mind behind Star Citizen, Chris Roberts, the father of Wing Commander. Star Citizen is the game that will define all space simulators from now on.
Freelancer had 200 star systems in Discovery Mod, and with 150 players online most players would stick to the inner core solar systems leaving most other systems just empty space, for this reason, i dont see how a galaxy with 18 quintillion planets would improve multiplayer mode in any way even it this was an option.
I feel like the thread is just bashing NMS, in my eyes it is not even a bad game and it has a tonne more content than Subnautica. I do love Subnautica a lot more but once you finish it there isn't much point in continuing to play. I guess thats why games like DotA and TF have a much bigger fanbase.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
I'd like to think that this thread is more about what subnautica does better, rather than what NMS does worse.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2016
Let's all be quite clear about one thing though...
Amount of content does not equal variety or quality content, most massive games kinda fake the massive content bit by doing mostly reskins of the same content.
MMORPG is a big example of this, but at least they add scripted events. But I think we can all agree on that quests which are "go here fetch X amount of that or kill X amount of thus" are all clones of each other, which just happen to be in different areas with different skins. But in any survival or massive exploration game there's bound to be some repetition, some more obvious as others
TetrapodWastelands of CaliforniaJoin Date: 2016-08-04Member: 220973Members
I think in game design, the urge to go huge is a noob mistake. Look at Bethesda, their first game Elder Scrolls was huge as in you could never, ever explore all of it but there wasn't a point. As games went on the game worlds got smaller, more intentional and hand crafted. Far more content in a smaller area. The Subnautica devs got that and switched to the same model, smaller hand crafted and content rich. Basically spreading your resources out too far will make your game just as thin.
Still, someday, someone is going to get it right. They are going to dump tons of time into AI and procedural systems to have something that generates new content on its own. That's a whole different forum topic by itself. Something out of reach of most devs and more of a university research project.
If you got it in Early Access you don't need to "re-buy" the Game when it releases; you have it; it's yours forever, and that's a steal!
The budget-conscious gamer part of me agrees with this, I want to save as much as I can when it comes to gaming. However, I don't really want to get the full retail 1.0 for no additional cost when it releases. I feel bad for the developers to spend all their resources and not get paid anymore than they have already by the time it launches.
Say for example, 1000 people bought the game for early access at $20 each (not factoring in discounts or special sales), that's $20,000 before taxes. That's a lot of money yeah, but it has to pay for everyone on the development team, and who knows what other expenses they need, like advertising. To spend that money to launch the game and not get any more sales from it outside of new customers, I'd be frustrated myself.
I don't really want to pay full price after buying into early access, if anything they could apply what I've already paid towards the retail game. But I don't want to stiff the team out of any profit as well, because I want to see them go on to make more fun games, like Subnautica 2: Into the Depths
Lol I don't think you can really compare the games. The only thing they have in common is the exploring and discovery, but even that's vastly different.
If you got it in Early Access you don't need to "re-buy" the Game when it releases; you have it; it's yours forever, and that's a steal!
The budget-conscious gamer part of me agrees with this, I want to save as much as I can when it comes to gaming. However, I don't really want to get the full retail 1.0 for no additional cost when it releases. I feel bad for the developers to spend all their resources and not get paid anymore than they have already by the time it launches.
Say for example, 1000 people bought the game for early access at $20 each (not factoring in discounts or special sales), that's $20,000 before taxes. That's a lot of money yeah, but it has to pay for everyone on the development team, and who knows what other expenses they need, like advertising. To spend that money to launch the game and not get any more sales from it outside of new customers, I'd be frustrated myself.
I don't really want to pay full price after buying into early access, if anything they could apply what I've already paid towards the retail game. But I don't want to stiff the team out of any profit as well, because I want to see them go on to make more fun games, like Subnautica 2: Into the Depths
You're forgetting one thing though. All of us who play the game are playtesters who get early access to the content and also have to contend with various bugs and performance issues. However we're also here for feedback, performance data, suggestions. That's invaluable marketing and development information for the devs and we're paying them for it It's a win-win situation
wasn't all that long ago people were bashing the creative direction of subnautica over this up and coming "No mans Sky" game coming out promising all kind of stuff. the same people said subnautica would never be good without procedural generation like THAT game.
I never really agreed, and in the wake of the public outlash against NMS and the following praise SN received (as a indie game with a indie price showing how EA should be done) I just sat back and laughed and laughed and laughed....
not to dismiss the potential there but you can't argue it was handled well.
1,360 playing now
2,264 today's peak
7,452 all-time peak
Yeeeeaaahhh... It's not a lot of data points for NMS (2), but the drop in playerbase has been pretty catastrophic, while Subnautica started off low and has mostly gone up, especially on every content drop. But from 200k to 1600? Shee.
Comments
Hehe yeah it also says it right on the store page as well (or rather Steam's FAQ). I've seen more people on other games as well ask about this, are there devs out there who actually make you repurchase the full game when it goes gold? I for one haven't seen anyone do that, so I'm kinda surprised people even think this...
Yeah, but the devs have come out and said for Subnautica that Multiplayer isn't in the works and it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all, rather than Hello Games's answer of "Yeah, sure, but not really"
I heard that they might do a Kickstarter for the game. If so, I'll probably just donate $40 for the effort they've put in.
The only reason I would personally replay Subnautica would be for editable variables or more difficulties, still love the game though!
It only has more content because its a "finished" (I use that term lightly) game. Subnautica will undoubtedly have more content than NMS at launch. As for replayability, NMS just resets your game when you reach the end. That's it. Very replayable.
Lol, nope. 100 identical books don't have more content than 10 different ones. Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end.
I don't see how this can be true if games such as the ones I listed are still some of the biggest games out there?
If you feel that way, that's okay. However, we're not the only one's "bashing" it; there's a tonne of people out there who feel like they got shafted when they purchased NMS--and they damn well have a right to feel that way, because there was a sh-tload of stuff that was promised for No Man's Sky but Hello Games never delivered. They. Never. Delivered.
Here. Read this. Seriously. Do it.
Hello Games are, however, releasing updates for the Game, so... perhaps these (some of them?) might be patched in.
I was talking about " Doing the same thing over and over again in a loop without a proper ending to the journey isn't more fun than following a proper story with an actual conclusion as the reward at the end. "
@Coranth, I mean the game itself not all the controversy around it (that is what this thread is about, right?)
In Subnautica there is more of an atmosphere, and more reason to progress in game, collecting is much better and for a better reason, i care about my world, my bases, and i can modify my ships ect, add things to my home base. Overall Subnautica is just miles better than NMS in every way, so much that i now have over 127 hrs in this game over the last few weeks.
There were 6 main ship classes, fighters, bombers, gunships, gunboats, cruisers and battleships and everyone of them had its weaknesses, but in NMS none of this has been idealized or put together in a way that makes sense, in some NMS presentation i saw fighters striking battleships using simple cannons, this would have never been possible without the use of bombers with powerful ordnance.
Freelancer belongs to the same universe as Starlancer hopefully both these titles have been written by the mind behind Star Citizen, Chris Roberts, the father of Wing Commander. Star Citizen is the game that will define all space simulators from now on.
Freelancer had 200 star systems in Discovery Mod, and with 150 players online most players would stick to the inner core solar systems leaving most other systems just empty space, for this reason, i dont see how a galaxy with 18 quintillion planets would improve multiplayer mode in any way even it this was an option.
I'd like to think that this thread is more about what subnautica does better, rather than what NMS does worse.
Amount of content does not equal variety or quality content, most massive games kinda fake the massive content bit by doing mostly reskins of the same content.
MMORPG is a big example of this, but at least they add scripted events. But I think we can all agree on that quests which are "go here fetch X amount of that or kill X amount of thus" are all clones of each other, which just happen to be in different areas with different skins. But in any survival or massive exploration game there's bound to be some repetition, some more obvious as others
Still, someday, someone is going to get it right. They are going to dump tons of time into AI and procedural systems to have something that generates new content on its own. That's a whole different forum topic by itself. Something out of reach of most devs and more of a university research project.
The budget-conscious gamer part of me agrees with this, I want to save as much as I can when it comes to gaming. However, I don't really want to get the full retail 1.0 for no additional cost when it releases. I feel bad for the developers to spend all their resources and not get paid anymore than they have already by the time it launches.
Say for example, 1000 people bought the game for early access at $20 each (not factoring in discounts or special sales), that's $20,000 before taxes. That's a lot of money yeah, but it has to pay for everyone on the development team, and who knows what other expenses they need, like advertising. To spend that money to launch the game and not get any more sales from it outside of new customers, I'd be frustrated myself.
I don't really want to pay full price after buying into early access, if anything they could apply what I've already paid towards the retail game. But I don't want to stiff the team out of any profit as well, because I want to see them go on to make more fun games, like Subnautica 2: Into the Depths
You're forgetting one thing though. All of us who play the game are playtesters who get early access to the content and also have to contend with various bugs and performance issues. However we're also here for feedback, performance data, suggestions. That's invaluable marketing and development information for the devs and we're paying them for it
I never really agreed, and in the wake of the public outlash against NMS and the following praise SN received (as a indie game with a indie price showing how EA should be done) I just sat back and laughed and laughed and laughed....
not to dismiss the potential there but you can't argue it was handled well.
According to the SteamCharts stats. And this is at 2am.
NMS:
1,626 today's peak
212,321 all-time peak
Subnautica:
2,264 today's peak
7,452 all-time peak
Yeeeeaaahhh... It's not a lot of data points for NMS (2), but the drop in playerbase has been pretty catastrophic, while Subnautica started off low and has mostly gone up, especially on every content drop. But from 200k to 1600? Shee.
Multiplayer suck in my opinion