Well, I think a LOT of problems deal with stupid programmers/developers who screw people over. I have NO problem with GOG, but I DO with the idiot developers.

I have an Ati/AMD Radeon laptop and an Intel Laptop. My Radeon is a rather old integrated, and the Intel actually runs MORE items than the Radeon.

In fact, the Intel in many ways (despite what people think) was an upgrade, and with a ton more RAM on that laptop it can run anything and everything else.

Come in NMS. I put it on the new laptop, doesn't run period. If they didn't put in an Intel detector, or I could figure a way to disable that, I'm almost positive I could actually get NMS to run (which means, I'm probably smarter than the developers on that one, it's a VERY simple fix, just get rid of that stupid f$%^$%^ detector).

The irony, the lower end machine, the one with lower ram...it runs NMS...really really really badly...

I think it's optimized for an Nvidia.

Get rid of that stupid detection thing.

From what I can tell, it only LOOKS to see if the computer is running OpenGL 4.5 but doesn't require it for a ton of things. most of what it could run in 4.5 could also be run with lower settings and cards, so you can have a card that has 4.5 but isn't as capable as some of the really high upper end cards, and it still will run NMS.

In reality, if it didn't do a check, one might be able to actually run the game on other cards. Probably why I can run it on the Radeon (which I suppose comparatively is newer, but the laptop itself doesn't have over 8 GB or Ram like my newer one does, basically min specs, and runs the game...poorly but bearable) but not on Intels (due to seeing if there is either 4.5 OpenGL or if it's an Intel, not sure which it tries to see...at least that's what I think is going on with why it won't run on the newer laptop).

Something I noticed on an even OLDER machine. This with a Radeon series. Without the experimental patch it stops working around after the starfield. However, it gets farther than the Intel machine, but not much. This is with a dirt old machine with only 4GB of RAM (well, I suppose it depends on what you qualify as dirt old, this is about a year and a half old). I've installed a LOT of GoG games on this older laptop, and surprised how far it would get in that instance. The only thing I can think of is that it has a lot of a Microsoft C++ distributables and other extras on it that perhaps the game needs.

So, if someone is crashing at the title before the starfield, it may have nothing to do with the OpenGL and something to do with some sort of other component?

Developers have done an incredible job, it's Sean Murray (along with the usual hype train) that's sabotaged them.

no offence but get a proper PC or a laptop with a actual GPU whether it be full desktop or a M variant but you can't expect it to work on a laptop these days, specially a game so complex and procedural generated as NMS

This is literally THE FIRST game ever that won't really run well on any of the laptops.

That means, of EVERY developer out there that I've gotten games from, from Indie, to big name...these guys have managed to make the ONLY game that really doesn't run.

I'd pretty much nail these guys on that medal...it's not GOG...it's them.

It's basically they did stupid shortcuts which could have all been avoided if they had simply thought a little more about their audiences.

My laptops have better processors than most desktops out there, and my new one has more RAM than most out there.

It probably beats 75% of PC's out there.

Having a PC desktop instead of a laptop doesn't really mean squat these days, except for those who feel that only those with PC desktops should be able to play games and no other real reasons.

However, I'm not going to have a Desktop go with me on the plane, or travel with me around the world, or lug it to hotel rooms, or anything else for that matter.

The difference is I have to buy a new Laptop very regularly, as opposed to simply updating new components in the Desktop. In that light, a Desktop is a LOT cheaper than a top of the line laptop in the long run, but very inefficient for travel.

The Intel actually SHOULD run the game, if they had simply compiled it right. The fact that it runs on an older AMD radeon for me now after a LOT of messing around with it...indicates that they COULD have it run on Intel, but simply did stupid programming ideas which prevented them from reaching out to a LOT of their potential buyers. Same goes for not optimizing as much for AMD and focusing on the Nvidia crowd instead (used to be strictly Nvidia until I started to go cheaper with AMD and more powerhouse with as strong an Intel processor as I could get).

This is state of the art... no game has ever been capable of doing what this game does..
There was even legal arguments over the math used behind the game... to make it possible to do what it does.

"What are the minimum PC specs I need

OS: Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit versions)
Processor: Intel Core i3
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: nVidia GTX 480, AMD Radeon 7870
Storage: 10 GB available space
*Requires OpenGL 4.5, Intel cards are not supported.
*Core 2 CPUs and below are not supported"

[url=http://www.no-mans-sky.com/support/http://www.no-mans-sky.com/support/[/i[/url]]

I`m a bit behind the scenes with laptops right now, I`m sure they just get better and better. However, i`m up to date with desktops.

Isn`t it still true that the best laptops still tend to be inferior to desktops especially when it comes round to the GPUs and CPUs? They are always a slimdown version of the thing you get in a desktop, for obvious reasons, or as in the case of say the CPU, don`t get quite the required cooling advantages of a desktop. This obviously means the processing and graphical power will always be somewhat hamstrung, especially when pushed.

Despite what the specs for a laptop might say, I still believe that they will have some trouble when dealing with cutting edge programming and graphics of the latest games.

The benfits of a laptop is you can easily transport it, but the latest (or even mid-range) desktop is always best for raw oomph.

Anyway, hope your issues will be sorted out with patience. Give it a few days for the completed patch.

I have a machine that can run it (not great, but runs it). That's not really the point (though I did NOT see the Intel cards are not supported when I preordered). The thing is, when I really look at what that card can do compared to what the new machine I have with the most recent i7 I could find and the integrated chip, it seems that in reality, there isn't anything it could do that the intel couldn't do in reality.

The idea to simply NOT SUPPORT intel cards...really is basically a choice instead of anything concrete that I can see. It's self limiting because it restricts itself rather than simply let people try to run it on their machine. At least it appears they have some sort of self checking system there that makes it so my OLDER and LESS ABLE machine can run it while the new one I have cannot.

I say, get rid of the stupid check and simply let people run it on their machines. Even if it runs horrible, at least then people can look and see how it really compares in regards to the specs vs. what it really requires.

I suspect the experimental patch will smooth things out on the AMD cards I have (willing to wait until it's NOT experimental myself though), but I don't really see anything that would make it not run on an intel (even if poorly) overall.

I think the they basically did some rather poor decisions on how they focused it (for example, with the experimental patch, some of the things they have are REALLY simple ideas which if they had thought for a second or a half could have been easily avoided instead of even coming out with the experimental patch or having a need for it!). Yes, if you get a top of the line desktop, in general, it will be better than a top of the line laptop. However, a top of the line laptop can beat out most desktops that are mid range. It depends on what you do and get with your innards of the laptop. If you go completely integrated, you can cut costs on many components. If you decide to go with something a little fancier, it can get a tad more expensive.

This past laptop, I didn't notice anything stated about intel cards. My old one already had a Radeon, but I saw the various things and figured a top of the line laptop with an Intel might be a good choice for this game and in the future. So, yes, bad on me for choosing an integrated in this instance. That said, for most other things, the upgrade of processor and RAM made it so that this new laptop runs most of my work programs far better.

What shocked me (and this is where the experimental patch probably will work best from what I've read it does) is that my even older internet laptop with only 4 gb ram, appears that it can actually run the game. It already was running some of it without the patch until the whiteout when you hit the initialize for the basic start game. I'm thinking that it might run it past that with the patch. That's where this gets stupid, as that is BELOW min requirements obviously. No reason that could run the game and my new Intel machine can't except for poor design decisions.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-7.html

Maybe not, but Intel cards aren't as slobby as some may think.

No , I know they can run some stuff but really they are the lowest end card.

There is no better cpu than intel is just intel gpu's are more considered buisness type video cards than gamer cards.

I have to buy laptops with both in mind...especially in regards to CAD and other things.