No Man's Sky - PC - Steam - 40% Off - £23.99 - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
-285

No Man's Sky - PC - Steam - 40% Off - £23.99

£23.99 @ Steam
Considering a patch has just been released which has improved the game somewhat this might actually be worth it. Literally the first time I have seen the PC version come down in price from £39.99 sinc… Read More
anubispearl Avatar
4m, 3w agoFound 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Considering a patch has just been released which has improved the game somewhat this might actually be worth it. Literally the first time I have seen the PC version come down in price from £39.99 since release.

Vote based on the deal rather then whether the game is any good!

Direct from Steam.
Deal Tags:
More From Steam:
anubispearl Avatar
4m, 3w agoFound 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(15) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Thanks for sharing, but to be honest I doubt people would vote hot even if it was half this price.
#2
ThriftyMcNifty
Thanks for sharing, but to be honest I doubt people would vote hot even if it was half this price.
100% off and I'd vote hot ;)
1 Like #3
personally I value it as a £5 sandbox simulation. minecraft had more content to the game in beta stages.
If anyone is considering buying a game that features exploration subnautica is the way to go, its still in development so advertised as early access, but it had tenfold the content of NMS.
1 Like #4
Yeah, this is going to catch about as much heat as my car this morning. I guess people will compare to the price of the PS4 version that is cheaper in some places.
1 Like #5
Difficult one, I never vote on if something is good/bad but if its good price drop (like beats headphones, everyone hates it but if its half-price then gets heat from me).

In this case, people got conned at an early-access game at best and it was selling at full AAA title price (not to mention all the false advertising).

So voted cold from me - this company doesnt deserve any money - even if they were to update the game to what was promised and it was 99p.
1 Like #6
Couldn't agree more.
supasta
Difficult one, I never vote on if something is good/bad but if its good price drop (like beats headphones, everyone hates it but if its half-price then gets heat from me).
In this case, people got conned at an early-access game at best and it was selling at full AAA title price (not to mention all the false advertising).
So voted cold from me - this company doesnt deserve any money - even if they were to update the game to what was promised and it was 99p.
#7
Game quality drastically decreased more than anything known before in the course of 2 years ,
Product remained and still remains in alpha stage , yet retails for over 30 gbp .
lock crook Sean Murray and take away his rights to develop video games!!!!
1 Like #8
Even with the newly added features this game is still boring as hell. If exploration and base building is your thing go for Subnautica instead.


Edited By: daBluone on Dec 01, 2016 13:22
#9
cold for me, they sold an indy dream, and delivered an overpriced turd. I can't believe the recent asa complaint ruled in the devs favour on what sounded like the asa not understanding the complaint properly.

Edited By: bouncy99 on Dec 01, 2016 14:09
#10
A mix of badly run PR from an inexperienced small company (with an over-excited boss) pushed by Sony to expand their remit to a full price game and the growing number of self entitled gamers out there makes for a real toxic combination.

No Man's Sky's new additions have really helped turned the game around. Ignoring 'those trailers' and the one lie, it's a good game.


Edited By: pbyron1 on Dec 01, 2016 14:32
#11
pbyron1
A mix of badly run PR from an inexperienced small company (with an over-excited boss) pushed by Sony to expand their remit to a full price game

The PR was on Sony's side. Hello Games were offered money for development of the game, which Sean Murray turned down and instead insisted be spent on marketing (gotta get that false hype up).

It was Hello Games' decision to charge $60 for the game, not Sony.

pbyron1
the growing number of self entitled gamers out there makes for a real toxic combination..

I think people have a right to feel entitled to features that the developers and head of company flat-out said were a part of the game. Multi-player, being the most striking one.
It's like going to a movie, watching the trailers, and then being ushered out. You'd feel a little peeved to say the least.
#12
CookieMunzta
pbyron1
A mix of badly run PR from an inexperienced small company (with an over-excited boss) pushed by Sony to expand their remit to a full price game
The PR was on Sony's side. Hello Games were offered money for development of the game, which Sean Murray turned down and instead insisted be spent on marketing (gotta get that false hype up).
It was Hello Games' decision to charge $60 for the game, not Sony.
pbyron1
the growing number of self entitled gamers out there makes for a real toxic combination..
I think people have a right to feel entitled to features that the developers and head of company flat-out said were a part of the game. Multi-player, being the most striking one.
It's like going to a movie, watching the trailers, and then being ushered out. You'd feel a little peeved to say the least.

Over-reaction much? It's more like going to see a film where extra bits were added to the trailer that ran 6 months prior to launch and weren't in the film (so, like Suicide Squad).

The game was never meant to be 'multiplayer' in the traditional sense, which they made clear. It's certainly multiplayer in one sense; that planets, creatures etc can be named by other player, but they did mention during development that there would be the odd possibility of bumping in to another player, which is the one thing that didn't occur.

It was all about managing hype (which every game needs) against the final feature set (which often changes over time). Just like with most of Peter Molyneux's games, Sean Murray wanted to add all those features, probably had code for them but may not have been able to get them working or just believed in what the team could do a little too much. He obviously realised this just before launch and did publicly mention that the game wouldn't be the same as the demos seen and interviews held in 2014.
#13
pbyron1
CookieMunzta
pbyron1
A mix of badly run PR from an inexperienced small company (with an over-excited boss) pushed by Sony to expand their remit to a full price game
The PR was on Sony's side. Hello Games were offered money for development of the game, which Sean Murray turned down and instead insisted be spent on marketing (gotta get that false hype up).
It was Hello Games' decision to charge $60 for the game, not Sony.
pbyron1
the growing number of self entitled gamers out there makes for a real toxic combination..
I think people have a right to feel entitled to features that the developers and head of company flat-out said were a part of the game. Multi-player, being the most striking one.
It's like going to a movie, watching the trailers, and then being ushered out. You'd feel a little peeved to say the least.
Over-reaction much? It's more like going to see a film where extra bits were added to the trailer that ran 6 months prior to launch and weren't in the film (so, like Suicide Squad).
The game was never meant to be 'multiplayer' in the traditional sense, which they made clear. It's certainly multiplayer in one sense; that planets, creatures etc can be named by other player, but they did mention during development that there would be the odd possibility of bumping in to another player, which is the one thing that didn't occur.
It was all about managing hype (which every game needs) against the final feature set (which often changes over time). Just like with most of Peter Molyneux's games, Sean Murray wanted to add all those features, probably had code for them but may not have been able to get them working or just believed in what the team could do a little too much. He obviously realised this just before launch and did publicly mention that the game wouldn't be the same as the demos seen and interviews held in 2014.

I see your analogy, the trailer for the game looked epic - the game did not deliver!
1 Like #14
I will forever be reminded of this video whenever this game is mentioned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5jWtz3rzco
#15
Hot for me. The problem with this game is how it was sold, not what it is. It's a relaxing exploration game with mild crafting aspects. It is not the epic colossus it was marketed as. But then, I only started playing it after the release without knowing what it was and enjoyed it for what it is rather than being bitter about what it isn't.

But £40 is overpriced - £24 is kind of ok.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!