Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

no-mans-sky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#61

Post by simulacrum »

pduan wrote: post #4
shmerl wrote: post #2

I tired to reach developers with question whether they plan Linux release or not, but got no response. So not really looking forward to it. Everspace on the other hand looks quite promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HvpLe-2ijk

I never understood why people on Linux always fight to have games on the platform. From the dev perspective, Linux is probably a sub 5% market share so it's never worth the effort compared to releasing new features/content. Why fight this losing trend when you could easily dual boot or even have a dedicated gaming rig?

In addition to all the other replies (because we have computers with powerful GPUs that run Linux, because many other games run on Linux, because all the modern games engines support Linux, etc), in this case one of the devs previous games also runs on Linux: http://store.steampowered.com/app/242110/. That seems like reason enough to at least ask the question of whether they have any Linux plans.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#62

Post by fsloth »

shmerl wrote: post #52
fsloth wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is…

> Yes, there is MESA - so if software rendering suffices one can use more open options. Mesa has hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL. You don't need "big org" to do it. But it surely helps if they put resources into that work. > of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others ( It's worse than many others because their goal is not to improve the graphics stack, but to lock everyone into using MS syst…

>> Yes, there is MESA - so if software rendering suffices one can use more open options. >Mesa has hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL. You don't need "big org" to do it. But it surely helps if they put resources into that work.

The hardware specific driver is the more laborious thing to get correct. Well, OpenGL as well, but the driver is what I was after, not the specific API on top of it, and if the driver is buggy the OpenGL implementation on top can only try to patch things only so much.

>> of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others ( > It's worse than many others because their goal is not to improve the graphics stack, but to lock everyone into using MS systems.

I don't think there is any way MS can lock everyone into using their system.

I would claim MS has driven innovation in hardware accelerated realtime graphics by providing a stable and tested API at a time when OpenGL implementations were buggy and broken due to the messy work Khronos did with the standard and the way the implementations were done.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#63

Post by fsloth »

shmerl wrote: post #60
fsloth wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, - strawman was not intended. As a person with some experience in the graphics industry, the way I see it: if one uses hardware accelerated real time graphics capability, one is always effectively locking some parts of the rendering codebase in to some specific hardware platform. No matter what the API used to program the platform, you are effectively locked in to very few vendors. There really is no rational r…

> There really is no rational reason to highlight Microsoft as especially bad player in this market - on the contrary (as long as they are not the only game in town, of course). How are they a good player, if they could back Vulkan instead of pushing lock-in DX12, but they didn't? It's clearly bad.

If they would actively block good Vulkan implementations on Windows - yes, that would be a dick move. Is that the situation, though?

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#64

Post by viraptor »

fsloth wrote: post #48
CyberShadow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about something else. > If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. As opposed to DirectX, which is not implementable on other systems without large reverse-engineering efforts, because the technology depends on proprietary and encumbered middle-ware. Does a former specification for D…

"An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is…

> The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks

I don't know, maybe we should try. Currently the implementations suck, because there's no specification, not the other way around.

> And the complexity of the graphics stack is such that nobody but huge monoliths that can focus lots of paid personnel to implement the GPU, implement the drivers, fix the drivers, fix the drivers, fix the drivers...

Substitute GPU / graphics stack with general purpose OS. Sounds plausible, yet there are lots of people working on that huge monolith for free and getting paid.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#65

Post by nicolapcweek94 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
flashman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read lots of comments from people bewildered that Hello Games is continuing to add features and work on bugs after the game has gone gold. Gold is the 1.0 release: they got the game to a state where there were no showstoppers, and now they're continuing to add value to the game, as well as address issues that only become obvious when large numbers of naive users (and their myriad hardware specifications) encount…

Lol, Have a look at what Monkey Squad is doing with Kerbal Space Program. They added many game-altering and save-breaking "features", even migrated to a new version of unity, post-1.0 release. The days of distinctions between alpha, beta and release are gone. Developers are free to release most anything they want under whatever banner they choose.

An even better example would probably be Minecraft, which was released in 2011 and is still getting new features, biomes and blocks 5 years after hitting 1.0

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#66

Post by zamalek »

danso wrote: post #13

If you haven't been paying much attention to the drama, No Man's Sky had been struggling to contain fears that it wouldn't live up to the hype. Then last week someone managed to score an erroneously sold copy for $2000 [1] and livestreamed his completion of the game. His impressions seemed to throw cold water on NMS's promises, but this patch makes so many additions that it sounds like a totally different game. Prett…

> live up to the hype.

I am putting this game under incredible scrutiny because of that, and the incomprehensible lack of VR support. The more hype a game has the longer I wait after launch to purchase it. I'm really worried about open world syndrome with this one.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#67

Post by zamalek »

shmerl wrote: post #38
yoklov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a good argument, Vulkan is both brand new and much more difficult to support than other graphics APIs. Also Vulkan support doesn't fix busted drivers, wonky fullscreen, OS integration, etc. It also doesn't fix audio, or HID support, which is both huge headaches on linux.

So what if it's new? Technology shouldn't stand in one place. MS got so scared of it, that they rushed to push their NIH lock-in alternative (DX12). It demonstrates they understand the strong potential of competition here. Drivers can be busted anywhere (including Windows). But with Vulkan they are reduced to hardware layer which is ironed out rather fast normally. Not sure what you mean about OS integration (sounds…

> never had any sound problems on Linux for a while.

User experience is not the same as developer experience. Debian (where Pulse seems mostly standard) is not the only distro. Vulkan is expensive, time consuming and difficult to develop against - for a game that already had multiple launch delays.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#68

Post by flukus »

shmerl wrote: post #2

I tired to reach developers with question whether they plan Linux release or not, but got no response. So not really looking forward to it. Everspace on the other hand looks quite promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HvpLe-2ijk

So much hate.

I use windows (for games and .net development), but this is soon going to be a requirement for me soon too. The games I spend 90% of my time playing (paradox GSG's) are released on linux and the other 10% I don't really care about.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#69

Post by shmerl »

fsloth wrote: post #63
shmerl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There really is no rational reason to highlight Microsoft as especially bad player in this market - on the contrary (as long as they are not the only game in town, of course). How are they a good player, if they could back Vulkan instead of pushing lock-in DX12, but they didn't? It's clearly bad.

If they would actively block good Vulkan implementations on Windows - yes, that would be a dick move. Is that the situation, though?

They actively block it on Xbox.

Re: No Man's Sky: Update 1.03

#70

Post by Negative1 »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #56
Negative1 wrote: post #39

It's funny how he cites Carmack's plan/finger updates as a source of inspiration since these kind of changes went in over the course of the games development, not on a day 1 patch! If you consider the game on 'disc' as the finished product, there is no way you could consider this game complete given the incredible number of changes in this patch. A while back reviewers tried to pull this 'on disc review only' thing a…

You do remember the development of QuakeWorld right? http://fabiensanglard.net/quakeSource/johnc-log.aug.htm

I fondly remember QuakeWorld's release and I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. For instance, QuakeWorld was not a day 1 patch. Rather, it was a well planned update to the multiplayer parts of Quake that effectively ushered in the age of internet gaming (as opposed to LAN gaming which was really the best way to play deathmatch prior to QW).

Carmack wasn't trying to complete an unfinished game; he was trying to remedy all the complaints people had about it after the game had been out for a while.

Post reply on HN