It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionNo Man's Sky "NEXT" update now live - DRM-free multiplayer delayed(374 posts)(374 posts)
(374 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
18
19
20
21
22
25
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 25, 2018
Building castles in the sky.

No Man's Sky, the ambitious open-space exploration game in a procedurally-generated universe, just received a massive update appropriately named NEXT.

It brings a whole bunch of changes and additions across the board, most notably:

- Option to switch between first and third person view at will
- Visual upgrades to ships, NPCs, buildings, terrain textures, space vistas - pretty much everything
- You can now build far more complex bases anywhere on the planet
- Build your own fleet, upgrade it, and send it out or keep it close while exploring a system

The multiplayer element of NEXT is not yet included in the DRM-free edition of the game. Read more about the delay below:


"[i]From launch, the DRM-free edition of No Man's Sky will include all single-player content introduced by NEXT: third-person mode, upgraded visuals, better base building, player customization, and more.

However the multiplayer component will not be ready at launch; we expect it to be released later this year as full multiplayer parity remains in the pipeline.

For a small, independent studio, developing the feature across multiple platforms is a hugely ambitious and technical challenge which resulted in this delayed release. Hello Games is however joining forces with GOG.COM to introduce full multiplayer via the GOG Galaxy platform.

We appreciate your immense support and patience.

- Hello Games & GOG.COM Team[/i]"
Posted July 26, 2018
avatar
DudebroPyro: That's a valid concern, but making the game dependent on official servers is the problem here. Simply let anyone host an instance, and the issue disappears entirely.
If they refuse, then it becomes an issue because they then need to ensure access to their own servers free of any DRM-like restrictions. Understandably they might be reluctant to do so - in fact I'd go so far as saying it's not a good solution, precisely due to the issues you outlined - but if they neither do this nor allow unofficial servers, then the game has DRM, plain and simple.
Not having the ability to host servers does not make it have DRM. It's different. It's closed, but not DRM.
Posted July 26, 2018
avatar
DudebroPyro: That's a valid concern, but making the game dependent on official servers is the problem here. Simply let anyone host an instance, and the issue disappears entirely.
If they refuse, then it becomes an issue because they then need to ensure access to their own servers free of any DRM-like restrictions. Understandably they might be reluctant to do so - in fact I'd go so far as saying it's not a good solution, precisely due to the issues you outlined - but if they neither do this nor allow unofficial servers, then the game has DRM, plain and simple.
avatar
Exagone313: Not having the ability to host servers does not make it have DRM. It's different. It's closed, but not DRM.
The combination of not having the ability to host servers and a license verification on the official servers (which is still unconfirmed, but is most likely the case) makes it DRM - they're requiring a valid license to allow you to access the full features of the game. Imagine a game that offers a DRM-free demo while the full version requires constant internet connection to play (regardless of the presence of online features, or lack thereof).

Obviously that's a very extreme example, and what will happen here if neither of the restrictions I mentioned above get lifted (note that even one restriction being gone would restore the DRM-free status - doesn't have to be self-hosting, can be either) is nowhere near as bad. Doesn't change the fact that it is still restricting some advertised features based on a license check - on GOG, whose main purpose is to be 100% DRM-free. I wouldn't mind it so much if that was clearly spelled out, with a big warning, but as it stands we still don't have proper, clear confirmation, and they're trying to mumble their way through with some "it will require Galaxy" excuses (as far as I understand things).
Posted July 26, 2018
I can wait for the miltiplayer feature in the game, so just so I'm understanding this, the multiplayer feature is only excluded from the GOG version due to it being DRM-Free? The Steam version has it?

I understand the technical issues, just wanting to make sure I got it right :-)
Posted July 26, 2018
avatar
Exagone313: Not having the ability to host servers does not make it have DRM. It's different. It's closed, but not DRM.
avatar
DudebroPyro: The combination of not having the ability to host servers and a license verification on the official servers (which is still unconfirmed, but is most likely the case) makes it DRM - they're requiring a valid license to allow you to access the full features of the game. Imagine a game that offers a DRM-free demo while the full version requires constant internet connection to play (regardless of the presence of online features, or lack thereof).

Obviously that's a very extreme example, and what will happen here if neither of the restrictions I mentioned above get lifted (note that even one restriction being gone would restore the DRM-free status - doesn't have to be self-hosting, can be either) is nowhere near as bad. Doesn't change the fact that it is still restricting some advertised features based on a license check - on GOG, whose main purpose is to be 100% DRM-free. I wouldn't mind it so much if that was clearly spelled out, with a big warning, but as it stands we still don't have proper, clear confirmation, and they're trying to mumble their way through with some "it will require Galaxy" excuses (as far as I understand things).
I am still not sure how it wasn't obvious that some form of license verification was required to play a game online... even if you have Direct IP/LAN options you still have to verify your copy to play because anything else just allows piracy to run rough shot over the developers. I mean Hell if memory serves Dawn of War 1 had a massive issue with piracy because of its direct IP option.
Posted July 27, 2018
avatar
DudebroPyro: The combination of not having the ability to host servers and a license verification on the official servers (which is still unconfirmed, but is most likely the case) makes it DRM - they're requiring a valid license to allow you to access the full features of the game. Imagine a game that offers a DRM-free demo while the full version requires constant internet connection to play (regardless of the presence of online features, or lack thereof).

Obviously that's a very extreme example, and what will happen here if neither of the restrictions I mentioned above get lifted (note that even one restriction being gone would restore the DRM-free status - doesn't have to be self-hosting, can be either) is nowhere near as bad. Doesn't change the fact that it is still restricting some advertised features based on a license check - on GOG, whose main purpose is to be 100% DRM-free. I wouldn't mind it so much if that was clearly spelled out, with a big warning, but as it stands we still don't have proper, clear confirmation, and they're trying to mumble their way through with some "it will require Galaxy" excuses (as far as I understand things).
avatar
Black1Wolf2: I am still not sure how it wasn't obvious that some form of license verification was required to play a game online... even if you have Direct IP/LAN options you still have to verify your copy to play because anything else just allows piracy to run rough shot over the developers. I mean Hell if memory serves Dawn of War 1 had a massive issue with piracy because of its direct IP option.
How is that different from a single player game? Like all the ones being offered on GOG right now, like in fact the very reason GOG exists in the first place?
Why should multiplayer not follow the same model (which is working great right now), and instead artificially add restrictions? Even further - even if there was some kind of fundamental difference, why should that suddenly be an excuse for an exception to GOG's policy, their core mission statement, of being 100% DRM-free?
Posted July 27, 2018
avatar
Black1Wolf2: I am still not sure how it wasn't obvious that some form of license verification was required to play a game online... even if you have Direct IP/LAN options you still have to verify your copy to play because anything else just allows piracy to run rough shot over the developers. I mean Hell if memory serves Dawn of War 1 had a massive issue with piracy because of its direct IP option.
Point being there that that's not "DRM-FREE". Sure, not DRM in the 'classic' sense in that it prevents files from being copied. However, it is quite literally Digital Rights Management, as in 3rd party control over access to a part of your game, which is for many people, the main reason they give for choosing DRM-Free games.

I do agree multiplayer is likely better with 3rd party control (to ideally minimize piracy/cheaters/hackers etc), however it's not required for multiplayer to work. Non-3rd party controlled multiplayer is DRM-Free. (direct connect etc). The online experience would likely suffer greatly though, depending on what kind of multiplayer it is. That's reasonable, it makes sense to do it. But it's not DRM-Free.

An example of 3rd party control for Galaxy, beyond the fact that the servers are controlled by GOG, is the Ownership gateway check to multiplayer. There is *zero* technical reason for that to exist within the system, beyond anti-piracy and/or quality control of the online experience.

Hence why it's a rather important distinction whether they do that or not, at least when it comes to asking whether their multiplayer is DRM-Free or isn't.
Posted July 27, 2018
The thing is, GOG is flipping. It started with all DRM free, then there were a few games where you had to get third party whatever to play online, then it was "Galaxy", now its Galaxy or no online. Oh, then there is the galaxy install EMBLAZONED across the download page/dialog with a big-ass blue button. Pretty soon it will be click this minuscule link to get your normal non-galaxy download or go to this special place on the web site. Soon after it will be "fuck you, now it's DRM, we're the new Steam".
Post edited July 27, 2018 by irondragoon
Posted July 27, 2018
Fucking Sean the liar Lies Again!. I dont really care about the MP aspect but lying to your customers is not cool.
Posted July 27, 2018
avatar
zgrillo2004: Fucking Sean the liar Lies Again!. I dont really care about the MP aspect but lying to your customers is not cool.
wait, what are we missing...what are you missing? Sean lied because they can't have multiplayer on the GOG platform yet? did you read the other posts? multiplayer is live and great on steam...or are you gonna cry half lie now? did you read the other posts on why it's not possible yet?
Posted July 27, 2018
DRM free - Fair multi-player

Pick one.
Posted July 27, 2018
Would it make you guys feel better if I told you that the PS4 version with multiplayer is fatally bugged and nigh unplayable due to crashes?
Probably not.
Posted July 27, 2018
avatar
deepcapture: Would it make you guys feel better if I told you that the PS4 version with multiplayer is fatally bugged and nigh unplayable due to crashes?
Probably not.
I've also seen people stream the Steam version. Everyone came to the conclusion that the multiplayer is not ready for prime time.
Posted July 27, 2018
avatar
deepcapture: Would it make you guys feel better if I told you that the PS4 version with multiplayer is fatally bugged and nigh unplayable due to crashes?
Probably not.
avatar
finkleroy: I've also seen people stream the Steam version. Everyone came to the conclusion that the multiplayer is not ready for prime time.
Since primetime was over a year ago I doubt that'll be a problem xD
Posted July 27, 2018
It was pretty much obvious from the start that if you want multiplayer in a game then Steam should be the obvious choice and GOG is useful for Older and Single Player games except for some exceptions of developers who are terrible at keeping their games updated but those can be refunded if that's the case.

You can avoid a lot of trouble by using each platforms for their strenghts if you do need MP, no need to boycott any service as a knee jerk reaction.
Post edited July 27, 2018 by ChrisGamer300
Posted July 27, 2018
avatar
ChrisGamer300: no need to boycott any service as a knee jerk reaction.
There are plenty of great reasons to boycott Steam, most especially of which is that they have the power to steal all of the user's games at any time via banning their account, which they often do, i.e. https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-has-banned-over-90000-steam-accounts-this-week-reports-steamdb/

Boycotting Steam is not a "knee jerk" reaction, it's just wise.
Post edited July 27, 2018 by Ancient-Red-Dragon
Pages:
1
5
10
15
18
19
20
21
22
25
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionNo Man's Sky "NEXT" update now live - DRM-free multiplayer delayed(374 posts)(374 posts)
(374 posts)