> ...my impression is that they are releasing updates to No Man's Sky as a marketing effort...
Given that they don't (often? ever?) advertise Light No Fire alongside the NMS updates, I'd say that the updates into NMS are large-scale playtests of LNF engine updates, game systems, or both, rather than marketing.
I'm not so sure about that, but otherwise agree with your comment.
I'll gently point back to my hunch that many (most?) of the NMS updates are large-scale tests for things they're thinking about having in LNF. Given that it seems likely that both games are using the same engine, it'd make a lot of sense to use a preexisting playerbase for large-scale, no-cost testing of new changes.
Yes, I think we agree... I think they're using it for both marketing and to test the viability of it and get player feedback, but I do expect LNF to have at least some substantially similar mechanics to NMS for this reason.
> I come back after every major update and still find myself bored after a few hours.
Yep, me too. It's a decent sandbox to spend a bit of time in, and it's fine that that's all it is.
> Adding new content is great, but I'd rather see them spend that time on UI, UX, and tutorials.
They have spent substantial amounts of time on UI, UX, and tutorials... several times. Unless you're proposing they convert everything into a brain-dead "mobile" game UI (which would be a significant downgrade), it'd be very difficult to do much better than they already have with the inventory management and conversation UIs.
> It still feels like there are rough bones under all that content.
I mean, it's a sandbox. If they did all of the UI overhauling and tutorial creation you wanted from them -and nothing else- would that keep your interest for weeks and months... or would you play for a few hours and get bored? There's not much _game_ in the game and it's been that way since the beginning.
> I could play for two hours and still feel like I accomplished nothing except for "interacting with the world".
Two hours is like three or twelve story missions, depending on where in the story you are. Did you spend most of that time farting around doing stuff that wasn't main story [0], or are you just not really into the stories being told? IME, Rockstar's 3D games have always been not-all-that-great third-person shooters, but made up for it with the storytelling and world-building.
> ...because these games didn't respect my time.
If I were Global Overlord for a month, I'd permanently banish the sentiment "This video game doesn't respect my time". It's fine to say "This game bored me." or "I just didn't enjoy this game.". Unless we're talking about predatory "free" to "play" games [1] that survive by deliberately reaching deep into the wallets of whales, mixing pride into the discussion and claiming the injury of disrespect is very silly.
[0] ...of which Red Dead 2 has an absolute assload -most of which will bore folks to tears who don't really dig the "late 1800's outlaw going on about his day" thing-, and GTA V has a fair bit...
[1] Games that you have to pay up front to play can also belong in this category.
RDR2's intro absolutely did not respect my time. I sat down with an hour free to play it, and in that time, I did not reach a save point. There was some story, but it was very slow, and I had precisely zero interest in repeating it. I ran out of time, turned it off and never came back.
Almost all of the story missions are:
1) walk/drive/ride to this place
2) Talk to NPC
3) Do an extremely boring task (follow someone, drive somewhere, etc)
4) Walk somewhere else
5) Talk to someone else.
6) Collect XP or another reward.
Yeah. Like, the train heist and other cool gameplay segments were fun. But the missions to go to some random town and talk to someone and escort them back? Horrible.
> the game now has Y and Z. i did not purchase the game expecting those updates.
Yeah. Back in the day, those would almost always be paid expansions... if not whole-ass sequels.
There's a subset of video game players these days who expect years and years of substantial changes to a game. Why, back in my day you had to pay for anything more than a game-breaking bug fix... and you counted yourself lucky if you even got those!
Back in the day, they had to ship complete working games, because the cost to fix it later was too high.
Not that they wouldn't mess up all the time, but the punishment for messing up was severe.
And paid expansions were often the size of a whole game by themselves. Those are a lot of value, and there's nothing wrong with them. They even still exist today, though rarer.
Maybe the NMS's updates did amount to one or two expansions throughout the 10 years of updates, but they were done piecemeal. Were it not a game that massively under delivered on release, they could've gone that route.
Sounds like being required to ship a "complete working game" didn't matter much. Weird.
> And paid expansions were often the size of a whole game by themselves.
And many were not. Plus, if we ignore shovelware -both past and present- most games these days are way larger than they were back in the day.
Have you ever gone back and played those old games you fuzzily remember through a haze of nostalgia? Many of them [0] would be derided as low-effort asset flips [1] these days. Many of the NMS updates (and tragically many updates to other games) definitely would qualify as "expansion pack"-sized. Some updates are big enough to be whole-ass overhauls. It's _nuts_ how much work some industrious indie game devs put into their games.
It's fine to be angry at how the circumstances of NMS's launch, and be sore that Hello Games is getting any praise after all that. But it's dishonest to refuse to recognize both that a very vocal subset of gamers expects that games will come with months and years of substantial post-release changes provided free-of-charge and that many devs -for better or worse- provide what these folks are demanding.
[0] ...but definitely not all of them...
[1] Granted, all sorts of things get called "asset flips", so the "low-effort" part is the important bit here.
Always having some instance of someone messing up is still substantially different from more instances than not being messed up. So it did actually matter quite a lot.
Now, as someone who is an avid retro gamer, I play plenty of those old games you're talking about. In the very old days, games were definitely shorter, but by the 5th and 6th gen, the gap isn't quite as big. If anything, they're often too large now, but that's neither here nor there. Budgets are bigger, teams are bigger, and most importantly, the consumer base is bigger. So size of games and expansions needs to be looked at relatively.
Regardless, for non-early access (of which NMS is an example of in all but name) and non-live service games, there mostly isn't an expectation that content will be added, only that updates will be made that improve and fix what's there. The exceptions are mostly when there's a pattern of content uodates happening before, or when something is clearly incomplete compared to what's usual for a series. See the Monster Hunter series as an example for both the latter ones.
Overall, it's natural for customers to want things that are at least as good or better than before when technology improves. It's the opposite that should not be happening.
There's a difference between DLC and providing "the base game content" – which No Man's Sky was doing. It wasn't an actual game on launch and it's barely one now. They could have cut their losses but it would've ended the studio.
Now they're being touted as a paragon of scrappy game dev. Which is wrong.
> It wasn't an actual game on launch and it's barely one now.
I'd argue that it was barely a game at launch, and it's still barely a game today... it has always been a sandbox with very little game in it, and that's fine. [0] But that's neither here nor there.
They released a "game" ten years ago. They've updated that "game" many times and never charged for updates.
That makes those updates free. You can justifiably be angry about the circumstances of the launch, and justifiably be angry that anyone's saying anything good about the devs. That doesn't change the fact that this [3]
And the features they've bolted on "for free"...
is an asinine use of scare quotes. The updates were delivered free of charge, and the price of the base game hasn't been increased to account for them. This makes them free updates.
[0] See the fourth paragraph of [1] as well as most of [2] for a little more commentary on this.
> I think people are regurgitating takes from early in the game's development...
Some are, sure. But -I say as someone who enjoys the game for what it is and still pops in every now and again to mess around with it- there's not much game in the game. Like BoBaitlyn said, it's a sandbox game. It has always been a sandbox game, and there are some folks who spend a few minutes fucking around with the sand in the box, go "WTF, this is boring as shit. I'm out!" and are boggled at the folks who enjoy playing with all the sand.
There's nothing wrong with being boggled or talking about how much you hated the sandbox. Specific sandboxes tend to appeal to specific sorts of people... each one often has its own gimmick that will pull in different sorts of folks. Suggesting that most complainers are complaining from a position of ignorance when they're complaining about a lack of things to do in a game that doesn't have much game in it kinda sucks. I've been playing off and on since v1, and have played for about half of the major patches. Hello Games has added a lot of stuff, but they haven't really added in much game to the game, if you see what I'm saying?
I can see your viewpoint. Some people don’t like sandbox games. that’s fine, I actually hate them, but this game’s additions led me into it gently in a way I’d never interact with say, a minecraft game. However, this is like, a sandbox game on steroids. There’s a strong mmo component of grouping, more being added (per this topic), and playing however you want to is entirely possible. In that regard I consider it one of the better sandboxes I’ve played lately, and I have played hundreds of hours of games like star citizen. I’d wish star citizen approached the game loop similarly.
> Understanding alien languages isn't fun (and weirdly, has no UX thought put into it?)
FWIW, most of the systems in the game that have been there since the beginning have changed significantly since v1.
IIRC, back in the v1 days you'd give an NPC a species-specific valuable trinket and they'd teach you a randomly-selected word of their race's language. Learning words was useful for when you'd encounter a historical relic that presented an important scene from history, and when you encountered an NPC that was requesting assistance. In both cases, they'd make their speech or request in their native language, you'd be given a few context clues in the form of dialog describing gestures, NPC attitude, etc, and then you'd have to guess what action you needed to perform or resource of yours they needed. If you get it right, you get something nice.
Like many other systems in the game, this got reworked several times into what it is now: "Find an NPC, ask for language assistance, select a category of word to learn, and Bob's your uncle.". I won't claim that either the v1 or current methods of learning language are fun, but the v1 method did consume a resource that was often difficult to come by... so it made learning the language much more difficult. They could have cooked up three whole-ass conlangs and built in gradual language tutorials for each... but that'd be a surprising choice for a game whose most difficult puzzles are "Can you do basic arithmetic?" and "Can you understand which direction this list of numbers is rotating?".
There's never been much _game_ in NMS... and most any player who's made it to the center of the galaxy and both got what they were being told by the story and weren't enraged by the implications gets why. The game's first story (such as it is) is why I'm always amused by people who don't dislike it, but also take it very seriously and want there to be a ton of stuff to do in it.
Having said that, Hello Games has apparently been more than happy to add in a bunch of stuff [0] over the years. I'm amazed that they're making enough money on the game to still be working on it a decade later, but here we are.
> It's been a decade and I'm tired of seeing ads like this that...
Eh. As someone who pops back in for a few hours when there's a major change, I don't mind at all the detailed patch notes.
> Can we move on from this "game"?
Go for it! I'll still be popping in every now and again to screw around with it.
[0] ...some of which is clearly playtesting for things planned for Light No Fire...
> I actually had so many troubles with vmware on windows...
I assume this means that you were using Vmware Workstation? The VDDK is for Vmware vSphere, which -IIRC- runs on Linux and coordinates computers running ESXi, which are where vSphere VMs actually run.
Not that many people are going to be using Vmware Workstation to run a large number of VMs.
I think you're conflating different requirements/usecases.
Sure, a type-1 hypervisor like vSphere is technically better since there's no host OS creating unmanageable contention and if you have guests with higher performance requirements then yeah it's settling for something half-assed.
But in reality, we have some similar shit to a "fax server" that has manually set up weird manufacturer printer settings (local admins tried to be automated/distributed) and old third-party software libraries that "infects" a system globally (2 versions of that library cannot co-exist on a computer).
If that piece of crap can be contained on a VM, as long as it's contained and keeps trucking after a restart/powercycle everyone is happy. What kind of VM container hosts it is really secondary.
(What the software in question is can probably be inferred from the comment, the software is liked by users at the client so it's not going away)
> I think you're conflating different requirements/usecases.
I disagree. protoculture's core statement seems to be:
A lot of people think VMWare Workstation is the pinnacle product of the company and I have NFI how this came to be.
A company's pinnacle product can be completely useless to me, but that doesn't change the fact that the products of theirs that I do use are very simple and unimpressive when compared to it. [0]
Having said that, I expect that a lot of people think Vmware Workstation is Vmware's pinnacle product because they've never heard of vSphere, ESXi, or anything else the company has made. "People have no knowledge of like 95% of what most companies do." is always a solid first guess when trying to work out confusion like protoculture's.
[0] Please spare me the "But how can it be a pinnacle product if it's not useful to you?" retort and ones like it. I've deliberately made a distinction between a product's usefulness to me personally and the sophistication of that product.
I don't think we're particularly in disagreement here, I think pinnacle product in manys eyes can be both reputational(prob workstation) or economic in addition to technical, so my reply was mostly in terms of replying to the NFI part of that statement and not really in terms of any personal judgement.
> And what exactly would they use that particular access path for ?
Uploading the weeks, months, or years of locally-stored activity [0] data? Text compresses really well and local storage used to be very cheap.
[0] ...mic voice transcription, how often you use the thing, for how long, and a best guess (because of lack of time sync) at when, "automated content detection" logs [1], names of files you've fed to the thing, -if equipped with a camera- number of people in the room and interesting information about them, etc, etc, etc...
[1] ...assuming that that can be done with data loaded from the factory, which I kinda doubt...
1) What I called "automated content detection" is apparently called "automated content recognition", abbreviated as "ACR".
2) That weeks, months, or years of locally-stored activity I mentioned can also contain historical ACR records. Given that the audio and video of what's being displayed on the screen is "fingerprinted", those fingerprints can be saved just like everything else picked up by the "TV" and uploaded whenever the thing next has Internet connectivity. The "TV" manufacturer will lose the "what are they doing right now?" aspect of the feature, but the "what have they been doing?" aspect of the feature will work just fine.
Directly related is this section of this Gamers Nexus investigation, but the entire video seems to be worth watching if you're not rather familiar with the topic: <https://youtube.com/watch?v=6IFVTcM28KA&t=26m47s>
stickynotememo: "How would you install packages (or update the kernel)?"
You: «You'd use sudo or su (of course) but I'm going to distract you from that with an advertisement for the work I'm doing on my personal project!» [0]
But, perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. So... I'll ask stickynotememo's question in a different way:
How would a user of your system update the Systemd collection of software to apply a critical security update?
If the answer is something like "I'd rebuild the read-only root partition with the new code.", then I ask:
1) How does the data in that root partition get rebuilt? If it's on another computer, how does one control access to the root-partition-rebuild computer?
2) How does one instruct the user's computer to use that newly-rebuilt root partition? How does one control access to the system that permits one to load a new root partition and/or change which root partition to use?
3) How does a user recover when an update fails or is faulty in a way that your smoke tests didn't catch?
Please keep your answers concise.
[0] Personal projects are great, and I strongly encourage them. However, the way you've answered is what a greybeard would describe as "pulling a fast one". Pulling a fast one does not earn trust.
I am not convinced you processed what I wrote, but I will attempt to answer your questions anyway because they will aid me in writing docs later.
> 1) How does the data in that root partition get rebuilt? If it's on another computer, how does one control access to the root-partition-rebuild computer?
If they use an official one published by their distro, then it is likely sufficient that it is signed by a key in a multi-party-controlled remotely attestable secure enclave controlled by the distro team, which only does so in exchange for multiple signatures from independently controlled secure enclaves that produce deterministic artifacts. The key could be backed up and restored across enclave updates using shamir secret sharing so no single engineer gets the key but they can cooperate to provide it to an enclave.
Of course this scheme to avoid trust in any single human or machine in the linux distribution supply chain only works if you happen to have a deterministic full source bootstrapped linux distribution that has strong multi-party security controls (like stagex, my "personal project", protecting hundreds of billions of dollars in fintech infrastructure right now)
> 2) How does one instruct the user's computer to use that newly-rebuilt root partition? How does one control access to the system that permits one to load a new root partition and/or change which root partition to use?
If the high trust supply chain signed UKI builds are a thing, per question one, then life gets easy here.
On first install a user would be forced to enable secure boot enrolling the linux distro signing keys, and the installer would encrypt their hard drive to that secure boot state via TPM PCRs.
Now, even though the user-accessible portion of the OS is entirely unprivileged, the user can be trusted to download new signed UKI images and place them in an update search path. Now on reboot the update will be seen, verified newer, and could be kexeced to. If it boots successfully past the uki image, a hook will cause it to move the old image to a backup file and replace with the new one, then reboot properly. Secure boot sigs pass, image is newer than old image, TPM policies pass, and disk can be decrypted. All automated.
> 3) How does a user recover when an update fails or is faulty in a way that your smoke tests didn't catch?
If the kexec test fails to boot to the hook and drops a crashlog, then the original still-unmodified UKI image stays in place, will see the crashlog, and then boot normally and warn the user about the failed update and offer to submit an Issue.
None of this is novel, though knowledge of it seems sadly rare. All can be done right now with existing FOSS, and many embedded Linux devices and servers use patterns like these. Especially in high security environments like fintech. Just configuration, admittedly a lot of it, which is what I am packaging and simplifying right now in stagex so it can be an opinionated default.
> I am not convinced you processed what I wrote...
I did. There's at least one huge hole that the system -as described- seems to not account for:
> If they use an official [root partition] published by their distro, then it is likely sufficient that it is signed by a key in a multi-party-controlled ... enclave[.] Now, even though the user-accessible portion of the OS is entirely unprivileged, the user can be trusted to download new signed UKI images [from their upstream provider] ...
Distros often fail to preinstall all the software a user of a general-purpose computer needs. How does the user of this system add new system software to be used by every user of the system, rather than just the user who installed it? Suppose that the user wants to swap out the upstream-provided syslog daemon with rsyslog, or the user wants to install ghostscript for use by every user on the system... how is that done?
If the answer is something like "The user builds their own root image and signs it with keys that they manage, and then loads it into an update server that they control so their computer can automatically update to it.", then that's equivalent to using sudo with a ton of extra steps. If the answer is either "They use access control and elevation systems that means they're effectively root to augment the software load on the read-only '/'." or "Don't be daft, there's a single user on the system." well...
What mike_hearn said to you is also quite relevant:
> ...if all the apps that matter are installed to ~/.local then you're just removing the need to obtain root at all for most attacker priorities.
EDIT: There's another way a user can get new usable-by-all-users software on their root image: "Ask their upstream provider to add the software the user wants to the image and hope that they both accept the request and process it in a timely manner."... just like was done back in the days of glass teletypes, thin clients, and netbooted PCs. My recollection of (and participation in) a relevant slice of history might be why you think that I didn't "process" what you wrote. All that the system you describe seems to add is boot image signing... and I'm certain that ultra-paranoid sites have been doing that sort of thing for ages.
> I usually don't have to walk more than a block or two to find one.
That is not the situation in most of the city, whether it be "nice" parts or "nasty" parts. Restaurant districts tend to have more trash cans than anywhere else, but the presence of a restaurant district is no guarantee of good trash can coverage. Source: I've walked around so much of San Francisco in my ~fifteen years here.
In the places I frequent that have reasonable trash can coverage, I've found that trash cans are very slowly disappearing and never coming back. Maybe they get fucked up beyond usefulness and don't get replaced? I really have no idea.
Given that they don't (often? ever?) advertise Light No Fire alongside the NMS updates, I'd say that the updates into NMS are large-scale playtests of LNF engine updates, game systems, or both, rather than marketing.
reply