This community isn't unique. All game development works like this and all forums look almost the same. People are people and the law of averages must be upheld. Best thing to do is to either trust in the developers to do a good job while providing good feedback or go find something you actually do like. This wasn't directed at you, just a generally reminder to the folks willing to listen that being salty really doesn't help anyone.
I think that the best we can do is be fair when reviewing, try not to focus too much on what the game was supposed to be and just focus on what it is. If you like it anyway, say so, if you're disappointed, well just remember that the devs didn't lie, they were wrong. It's a key difference. From what I gather the devs of No Man's Sky lied their asses off to hype the game, these devs were rather open, they just held back some info until they knew for sure. It's an important distinction as swarms of vitriolic and accusatory negative reviews can potentially damn the game, it should be able to survive some initial disappointment as long as post launch releases do indeed improve the quality over time. How we got here is pretty well documented, features took longer to implement than they'd hoped, stuff like Picco didn't work out at all, we're getting released soon because they need to maintain operating capital to keep working on the game. It seems to be a matter of ambition outweighing capacity, but it still can get there one day, and even handed reviews can help. I do think it's true that overwhelming negativity can sink whatever chance there is, but I think this has more to do with tone. Honest criticism can be used to improve the game, sensationalized accusations and the like can tarnish the reputation and damn it.
Yeah its still bothers me how they lied to our faces while smiling the whole time. Not exaggerated but actually lied.
Big difference between not meeting a goal and claiming to already have met it. If I said I'm going to make a million dollars by the end of the year and I don't, I didn't lie, I failed to attain my goal. If I claim to have already made a million dollars I don't have, I lied. Our devs seem to have done the former, No Man's Sky appears to have done the latter. The important thing is ours are still working on it, the other devs probably won't be able to because they've tarnished their reputation. I believe they said certain features were there (not going to be but were already) that weren't and stuff like that.
I dont think that bE got the money to purchase it. Planetside is now under control of Daybreak (Theybreak-) Games. They are just milking the cow until it dies. I dont know the prices, but i guess its not cheap. But i would never buy their engine. Not because its old, but because its clientside.. Everything is handled on our pcs, thats one reason why the game demands a big amount of resources. Its also very easy for hacker.
They lied on the multiplayer part. They also said and showed desert planets, huge space battles, factions and impacts on the universe.
Regarding Forgelight Engine used by Planetside, it is highly unlikely Daybreak would sell their technology to a competitor. If they did, imagine how much they would charge. Regarding creating a new engine, it can take several years to build and many, many millions of dollars. Here's some links for reference. http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/qu...uce-a-game-engine-and-website-to-sell-it-from http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/qu...-cost-to-produce-a-major-video-game/4531#4531 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-15
