In NMS multiplayer is just a checkbox, which can be en- or disabled on the fly. There is no "connection", it's completely seamless. In fact, you can leave MP enabled all the time and almost never even see other players. AFAIK some people only turn it on to take community mission, and to turn them in, flying SP 99% of the time. That's why I doubt that many people here swinging torches and pitchforks have actually played the game and know how it works. As I said, enabling MP doesn't change the running game, it just adds a few things.

Thanks :-)
GOG delisting the game would be excessive in my opinion, and send a really bad message to other devs and publishers. I'm all for prodding HG a bit though, they should see that their decision made offline players really unhappy, even if they technically didn't lose anything. They just got less.

I know. My point being that it's like that by design. A design which could be changed in theory if they wanted to. There are no technical limitations to doing it differently, just things developers want to do or not. It doesn't HAVE to be done this way because of reasons - it's a choice.

Since you seem to be so adamant on the subject, can we talk about Dying Light then?

In this game you can find special items, like (literal) Easter eggs, which function as really cool grenades with effect varying by color. AFAIK you can only get those by taking part in online events, like the Egg Hunt around Easter. They are not really MP, you play the SP game as usual, but can find those eggs, and even another NPC in a bunny costume which you can hunt down for a massive reward.
Those items carry over to your "normal" SP experience, even after the event ended. And pure offline players can't get them (afaik) at all.

So those are essentially DRM'd grenades in a single player game. Should Dying Light have been delisted long ago? Serious question!

It was a bit hard to understand the situation with all the drama and lack of facts, but my fascination with Hello Games after their initial disaster is quite strong. I'm glad that the scammed consumers eventually got something worth playing, but this is simply another example of a company - big or small - that wants to decide how you experience the content, to limit your access to your purchase and to otherwise control your behaviour.

I don't think these "innovative" measures are always meant to be malicious, but sometimes try to create interaction and to stimulate the community aspect of a game or feature. In the end, the result is the same: it creates arbitrary limitations that risk dividing the user base, which is what we see here. Some will see the obvious problems with having content locked behind some unnecessary requirement, others will have to fight their own mind to find an excuse to accept it.

Whether GOG should react promptly in such a case is another matter, because they have contracts and business policies that users do not know about. The warning on the store page is probably the safest approach, and of course letting users share their displeasure is very important so that they can warn others. I just hope that most of you understand that GOG never asked for any of this and that this is Hello Games' idea of a "fun and stimulating experience".

I am often displeased with GOG and only tolerate them to get the install files of games, but in this case, they're not in a strong position. Hello Games the little guy is simply acting like these big publishers who don't care, letting others figure out how to fix their mistakes for them.

As for those who are strangely disingenuous about this, with false equivalencies and other deviations, I hope you're also not trying to find "good reasons" to have to wear a mask to go buy some apples or take the bus. Principles apply to everything, from a shitty game finally redeemed to the violation of human rights.

)

Well, considering the market shares of Steam (~75%), EGS (~ 15%) and GOG, UPlay, Origin, etc. (~ 10% combined (!)), that message doesn't seem to be total bullshit.

I don't know, can we? As you were so keen to point out, this is a thread about No Man's Sky after all!

Seriously though - apparently that situation is very similar to this, so yes, that game should have been either fixed or delisted. In fact, if that were the case we probably wouldn't have to have this discussion now. If anything, this proves how such precedents erode GOG's supposed "rule". From Dying Light to No Man's Sky to whatever comes next.

This is off-topic, but I must admit that I was shocked when I read this. This is an immediate-uninstall-and-ask-for-a-refund offence in my book. It's as if a new version of a word processor would require you to write all your documents again.

Based on the information you supplied, this seems more or less the same story. And in both cases, as you yourself pointed out, delisting is not the only option: they can remove the artificial online-only wall and make this content also available offline.

Most of the time people seemed to be more happy about the update than annoyed they had to rebuild.
And many - me included - saw it as an opportunity to start a new game.

But in my current game I have a really nice base I came to like, and I would hate to have to rebuild it (you never get to do it exactly the same, just like in real life). So I really hope they leave planet generation alone.

Yes, well... that pretty much describes NMS. It's been in a constant "beta" since its release, with more content added, some of it redesigned etc. You never know what you're gonna get in the next update or how it's going to change things. But I guess most people are ok with it since it's (again, here comes the bullshit) marketed as a rougue-like/sandbox experience :). Starting over should be fine for you, player, stop complaining.

Incidentally, I am waiting for Hello Games to move on to something else and end the constant stream of updates before I finally start on a third playthrough, hopefully for one final time.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting game that keeps getting better... or at least it did so far, because I'm not sure of the new direction this thread is signaling.

To me, the multi-player marketing stunts they pull with Dying Light don't really compare to what is happening with NMS. I mean really, NPCs in bunny suits and "special" Easter egg grenades? If you ask me they shouldn't make that stuff available offline, they should remove it altogether.

Needless to say nobody saw these stupid events as a detraction from the single player experience, but I agree with you it's wrong in principle. It's also not a good comparison to the situation we're currently discussing here.

That's why I asked. The difference with Dying Light is though - if I hadn't accidentally stumbled (usually I don't get to play around holidays, family and all) across this, I would have been none the wiser, and never even suspected stuff like that is in the game.
So there is nothing exactly "missing" if you play offline.
Arguably NMS is worse, because they advertised the Living Ship update loud enough, and if you play "half online" like me, you actually get to see the things occasionally.
Ha, I've never played through it... always started over thinking "now, for real" :-D
I think it's maybe the tenth or so game, the first (and longest!) right after release.

That's a very strange definition of "missing". You could just as well argue that half of the side-quests in Witcher 3 (or any given RPG) could be locked behind going online, and as long as there is nothing to even indicate their existence while you are offline then nothing is "missing".

Yes, but to compare it to how these "limited time multiplayer events" are for Dying Light when comparing to single player, it would have to be quests like Geralt and Roach eating mushrooms, then Roach riding Geralt around for a while to whack some moles and getting to keep a whack-a-mole grenade for the rest of your single player game. That you could throw at a boss later on in the game. And it would squeak 100 damage...

It's missing content alright, but perhaps it should always be missing.

"Living Ship" is a serious addition to the game, not a joke. Which is why we're comparing apples to rotten tomatoes here.

That seems to be the core of our disagreement.

I see stuff like that as "extra", as not essential to the game, especially when it was "tacked on" later. You seem to think everything must be accessible offline - which makes games with special rewards for playing online an impossibility on GOG. I don't like the mechanism either, because I don't play online - but I don't feel entitled to decide "this game can't be on GOG, because online players get one silly item more".
That's a pretty spot on description. I was laughing my ass off when I saw the guy in the bunny suit, but seriously, you don't want this in "normal" gameplay.