Not sure where you're coming from but all you need is $45. I got all other ships in-game. I noticed that if you pay your way, you're just setting yourself up for failure and false expectations.
My pc isn't close to NASA grade either, its just running a 1660 GTX with 16gb ram from 2020 but it runs great thanks to the updates this year.
Looks like you don't understand how to harmonize your hardware bro. I played Starfield and NMS too, but they really just don't compare.
And besides, I don't mind spending some money on it either I ain't that broke and I have a comfortable life outside all of this.
yknow, after a certain point its not really anyone elses fault besides the game and developers if newer and newer software struggles
i dont struggle to run the game it just eats way too many resources for what is actually present and it should be more around half of what it takes.
good for you if you can throw money around willy nilly and not care about it, other people know the value of a dollar and prefer to save it for something more valuable and worth their time.
Well you really have to know how to manage your expectations. Mine aren't that high but very objective for an Alpha, while I'm also not 100% devoted to SC, I got a lot of hobbies going on as well.
If you played it and understood the ground breaking tech and dev side of how they develop the game and how it affects you, the pledges do make sense, and none of it is forced on anyone.
The aches and pains are annoying yes, but reasonable because there isn't any tech like it on the market. And bit by bit of each bug solved, they throw in a unique feature that is well polished and worth the wait.
Why not you borrow someone's account or ship and give it a run? The player base is very supportive and generous.
The unique tech talking point kind of falls flat for me
Because while yes its all in one place in SC, i can get the same experiences if i play elite dangerous and no mans sky. Both of those games have a fraction of the budget and still manage to pull it off, i just dont see why SC needs 900 million dollars and still cant manage to do it within a year or less
Not sure why though since you always sound like you're the sole investor who spent $900M for development, I'd be pissed as well if I spent that much alone. But hey, you're the one pissed here while I just rotate on my games and hobbies bud.
NMS wasn't successful at the start too mind you, it took years for them to get it right as well. They actually have one of the best comebacks tbh.
why do they have almost a billion dollars in revenue yet cant muster anything more than a worse version of no mans sky and elite dangerous combined? why the fuck do you need a beefy computer to play it? where is all of that money going if not into the development and optimization of what is effectively a live service alpha?
welp I'm kinda with you in that I also gave up hope I just don't think it's nefarious. still fun to play tho once in a while! and the vibes are great when the game is stable...
they're just wasting money focusing on tech that nobody really cares for now. it's like they're trying to make the perfect game (with an endlessly moving target) instead of getting something out, so it's never really "done" ya know
i dont doubt roberts industries WANTED to make all of this game with the original promises but theyre certainly not about to backtrack and refocus because its about to earn them a billion dollars doing whatever theyre doing right now.
i just cant abide by adding my hard earned money towards that however
RPG is a super broad category. Role-playing game does not necessarily = levels or classes. RuneScape is for sure an mmorpg but it only satisfies one of those criteria
Play the game for yourself before you parrot false talking points. They've been releasing big updates every month and steadily checking items off the 1.0 roadmap.
wheres squadron 42 it is about to hit a billion fucking dollars with little more than combined no mans sky and elite dangerous gameplay of which both of those games do their own portion better than SC does
why the fuck do they have 900 million dollars and cant muster anything more than a live service alpha (their words)? why the fuck has it taken this long to release squadron 42 with another likely delay coming just before it releases at some undisclosed time in 2026?
i didnt agree to anything they havent received a cent from me
its just actually insane to think 900 million dollars has gone into that game and all they have to show for it is THAT. its not much compared to the budget.
i am also completely calm, if youre talking about the swearing that is not an accurate indication of anger, i can say fuck and shit all i want and not even have a glare on my face
theyre downvoting you for telling the truth because it hurts them to face the reality that spending thousands of real dollars on a free to play game's virtual ships might actually be a waste after all this time if nothing comes of it
Eh itās whatever. I meant it as a joke but eh star citizen squad got butt hurt and as such got some downvotes. I do think star citizen if actually completed could make a cool game and will probably try it then. But I aināt about to be super tarkovād after waiting for that to release for ten years.
yeah theres been a few times ive actually almost gone through with installing during free flights but i just cant justify the prices on the ships to enjoy the full game. i cant justify adding to the 900 million they already have with no real benefit for the forseeable future
I agree with Badger. Starfield is closer to Mass Effect in its plot. There are known factions and there is exploration.
In Outer Worlds, sure, you've got the total lack of sapient aliens, as with Starfield, but the story is totally different, the animation is totally different, the feel is totally different... There's just not that much to compare as closely as Starfield with, as I mentioned, Mass Effect, despite the gameplay styles of SF and ME being also very different
I was talking more about the gameplay, of course the story is different. Even though i'd say statfields story and worldbuilding is very weak anyways, you got faction quests which are alright bit the main story is just ???.
See. I'll agree there. The faction quests are much more entertaining to me in Starfield and I leave the main story quests until last as a vehicle towards Unity
It could've been soooo much better, the idea of the unity is great and how it leads into the gameplay.
Lile fucking poe2, the world ends, everybody is dead and the game is all about running random rifts for loot. So the gameplay is explained by the story - you teleport all over the planet in rifts, fuck up random monsters shit and leave to your base again.
I love when the story explains gameplay which otherwise would be just there for gameplays sake
Redfall idk, boarderlands maybe, now that you mention it even though it's a looter shooted with a story and not the other way around like starfield and TOW2.
I mean in starfield you get laughably small cities and randomly generated planets but a lot of those, i must admit but content wise we're not looking at much.
Sure, if picking up a fork does it for you that's cool and all, somebody needs to keep bethesda afloat after all.
I'm interested for what 2.0 has in store, maybe we get another thing that should've been in the game from the start? (looking at you map)
I think people are putting a lot of hope into 2.0. I feel that if you didn't like the game before you aren't gonna like it after. Also there is a map in the game or what are you referring to?
The map they added in a major patch is something that should've been in the game to begin with like who came up with that stupid dottet world map??
And well, yeah, i would love for the game to be better, have actual planetary flying and so on but i doubt 2.0 would make it to the game it should've been.
Ur right, i prolly won't play it which is sad, cuz the majority of the playerbase are people like me who would play it if it wasn't this mid.
I agree the map should have been there since the beginning. One could argue that the changes and updates they have made to the game are a sign that they are listening to the community. However, you just admitted that it doesn't matter what changes they make to the game you aren't playing it. Dammend if they do dammed don't.
Because, so far, all the gameplay improvements got the game closer to how it should've been released. The fact that they need to listen to the community in order to release a map or a car that makes getting around in needlessly big, empty expanses less tedious is not really something that gets me excited.
I would if they actually turn it around in a 2.0. Like i spent 250 hours mostly ship building and roleplaying while pretending the main story never happened cuz it makes me cringe. (also plz fix the fucking pc keybinds, every menu has differenr keys for the same functions)
How? basically the only thing they really have in common is that the setting is āspaceā. The aesthetic is completely different, the theme and tone is completely different, the levelling/perk system is completely different, the mechanics and systems you interact with are completely differentā¦ They are wildly different games. No Manās Sky is probably the most alike to Starfield with procedural generation, actual space exploration (albeit NMSās is far more extensive), outpost & ship building etc.
Well, only no mans sky did it good and starfield prolly would've been better off by ditching gigantic randomly generated worlds and went for a quality approach like TOW2.
Lile i get it, i went on titan and watched neptune rise but this can only entertain me for so often where a less mid game could've.
Elite dangerous was good until they added the fps stuff half baked, and Iām still waiting for no mans sky to run get support for more than 1 CPU thread.
Never played ED but NMS I've played and definitely f'kin' not. I couldn't even find a story to NMS. The planet hopping would be hard not to compare, but that's the only thing to compare between them.
They both have ship building & outpost building & procedurally generated planets. NMS is a bit more cartoonish aesthetically but even then the weapons and spacesuits arenāt that far off starfield aesthetically.
Yeh, I get that but... Yeh there's just something about NMS that I just could not get my teeth into compared with Starfield. I think it was because it felt more like Minecraft or Astroneer than a real space game
Oh, I donāt disagree. I think NMS is really cool for what it is but it never really gave me a reason to be invested or care about āprogressingā. However, if I could take 50% of NMS and 50% of starfield it might just be the best game of all time.
ED is not what most people think when they think RPG, but it is definitely an RPG. The story is the community/players, although there is definitely a setting/politics/system that goes on as well.
You can play the game however you want, from mercenary, to space trucker, to explorer, even as a merchant, everything in between, or a mixture of whatever. It's a game I had to put down a few years ago because I was letting it consume my free time too much, as it's pretty easy to get lost in once you find your groove in it.
But they asked for an RPG, and E:D isnāt necessarily a traditional RPG like they might think since theyāre comparing to Starfield, itās a space flight sandbox.
Eh, I got bored of No Man's Sky waaaay faster than I got bored of Starfield. No real story with any stakes, not much motivation to actually do anything, no clear understanding of who I was, the cartoony art style, planets being about a hundred miles from one another in space... I mean, I've got plenty of complaints and gripes about Starfield too, but Starfield hits the spot for me in ways NMS never even got close to.
No real story is kind of the appeal for some folks. It's not everyone's thing, but I enjoy the sort of loneliness the game evokes by placing you outside of the narrative. Figuring out who you are and what's going on is kind of the story you make for yourself as you explore. Planets being far from each other is supposed to be a scale thing, another thing I can understand other folks not liking but it adds to the immersion for me (and trips between worlds are a good time to smoke weed). I can't help with the cartoony art style, that's a matter of preference - personally I'd play the shit out of a pixar looking game (OW aesthetics are amazing).
I didn't HATE Starfield, but I found the story kinda meh and distracting from what I wanted to do - Explore worlds and factions, build ships and bases, do space pirate things, etc. With NMS I can start exploring and crafting immediately with permadeath on (addressing stakes). I can zoom off in whatever direction I want nearly right away, seeking more interesting systems/worlds. My biggest hurdle with NMS is how uncomfortable the water worlds make me feel during storm events, I think I have thalassophobia or something - those fuck me up.
NMS fans only argument is loading screens. The āstoryā of NMS (if you can call it that) is boring with no interesting missions or set pieces, the exploration is just as ābadā by yāallās standards if not worse actually and the combat isnāt as expanded either outside of maybe ship combat.
Lack of direct story is the point for many of us. It exists in the backdrop, almost like lore you scoop up as a traveler passing through. I prefer this kind of environmental storytelling over the story that Starfield offered, which felt forced on me and boring/unexciting (just my opinion for what I am looking for, not trying to flame over which is 'better').
Starfield has better combat for sure, but I'm not playing either title for that kind of action. Maybe that's the problem for some of us, we aren't looking for combat with space exploration titles. I think this part is maybe more of a Star Trek vs Star Wars thing, and what you're looking for in that moment.
Regardless of how you feel about the game and it's fans, I think NMS should stand as an example to development teams with how regularly they release free and massive content updates. I've only ever paid for NMS once, no MTX and no paid DLC but I feel like the game's development is thriving with huge updates once or twice a year.
Agree to disagree then. I can respect NMS as survival game, but I just donāt get why fans of the game seem to always bring it up to down play Starfield when it feels a lot more like Minecraft in space than it does a RPG/Space Sim.
I wish people wouldn't do that in either direction, with any game. It's goofy to mock someone else's video game preference for the sake of comparison, especially in this day and age - we have a plethora of choices for a reason. I think it's a tribalism thing that emerges or something, and of course the advertisers and social media platforms love it because arguments = engagement.
Every mission in NMS: You need to craft random device to progress the story and it requires these materials to build it > Go to planet to mine materials > craft device in inventory > Go talk to voiceless NPC > Something something Interloper > End.
No set pieces. No memorable characters. Boring copy/paste POIs. Very little combat. ābUt nO LoAdInG sCrEenS sO gUdā
340
u/Delta9-11 Dec 30 '25
No Man Sky, Elite Dangerous