>NMS, at this pace, is going to give me waaaaaaaaay more
>ENJOYMENT.
>
>>You aren't realistic or honest. This games makes sense at
>$45.
>>At $60 I have to judge it in line with the competition.
>
>Right. It is going to give MORE than the competition.
>
>It's probably worth 80 or 90 dollars, tbh.

You're right this is totally worth $80 or $90:

What it comes down to is that No Man's Sky is not nearly as varied and interesting as it seems to suggest. Its basic loop involves jumping into a star system; scanning for facilities or resource caches; visiting a sad little bunker that may or may not have an alien residing in it, mining some resources, and heading to the next system to do it all over again. It's repetition writ large.

The planets themselves aren't especially interesting either. No Man's Sky's stylized graphics have the effect of making planets blend together, with lush planets being surprisingly hard to distinguish from barren rocks. None of the planets pop nearly as much as the various screenshots seem to suggest.

Otherwise, it's mostly collecting resources for the sake of collecting resources. A huge chunk of No Man's Sky is carving up rocks and either selling them off or using them to gas up your ship. Without the urgency or danger of other survival games - or the prospect of building up a really cool building like in Stardew Valley - the resource collection feels rote and boring.

I think No Man's Sky is really on to something with its serene but lonely atmosphere, its massive scale, and its mysterious journey. But as usual, scale is one thing; it's filling in the gaps that's another. And like Elite Dangerous, No Man's Sky struggles in that regard.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/no-mans-sky-playstation-4-review-over-the-rainbow/page-2

........ FOH