To be fair this article really isn't saying anything new we didn't already speculate on or other journalists said.because is it better to admit your faults before someone else makes them public?
To be fair this article really isn't saying anything new we didn't already speculate on or other journalists said.because is it better to admit your faults before someone else makes them public?
When you engage in a very large project, it is common practice in the last decades to first build a prototype. You do it because:Perhaps project wasn't the right word to use. I am not in any way informed in game development practices. I am just trying to explain what the article is saying.
I mean anon sources is not really unheard of, especially if they wanna keep their carrier in the gaming industry. The matter of the fact is that this guy has ben proven to be trustworthy so far.
Marketed features are promised features. You show me something and then ask me to buy it based on that showing? Come on. Any unreal expectations or hype is on CPDR. Quite factually there is a lot of missing content. Just playing the game now reveals the missing content.Far to many people are complaining about "promised" features that were never mentioned, or mentioned only is passing, or part of demos clearly labeled "WORK IN PROGRESS, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL LOOK OF THE GAME".
The bugs and inability of the game to run on current gen consoles ARE issues CDPR management (not the devs) need to answer for. But large percentage of the most vocal "criticism" centers around things people wanted to see in CP2077. Guess what, no game, ever, will be the game you want with every feature you want.
YOUR (unrealistic) expectations being unfulfilled is not a valid reason to bash a game.
cdpr will never become another EA because EA doesn't have all their cards in one basket. So more like another BioWarecdpr either "fixes" the game or risk becoming "another EA"
And in my eye the journalist responded rather decently to it.I already posted a response video from a content creator reacting to this article before, which also included a statement from an CDPR QA Lead regarding this topic and elaborated on this:
Except you know, playing the game. It’s kinda obvious.As the old legal proverb goes; it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
So far that article lacks any weight of proof.
Yeah by blowing him off, then pointing toward his interpretation of the "apology" video.And in my eye the journalist responded rather decently to it.
So you're the type that tries to sue a beer maker because a dozen beautiful women don't materialize out of thin air when you open a can of their beer?Marketed features are promised features.
To me it does? He simply says that he doesn't think testers in Poland are paid fairly, but if the leader of the team thinks so, then there is no conversation? A rather mature and professional response in my eye.Yeah by blowing him off, then pointing toward his interpretation of the "apology" video.
Instead of you know, addressing how he spread misinformation.
"If you think testers are paid fairly, I don't think it'd be productive to go back and forth about that." Doesn't sound very journalistic.
What kind of strawman...So you're the type that tries to sue a beer maker because a dozen beautiful women don't materialize out of thin air when you open a can of their beer?
I.E. You believe "Marketing"?
If they try to sell me a product based on that marketing, they they are culpable. No?So you're the type that tries to sue a beer maker because a dozen beautiful women don't materialize out of thin air when you open a can of their beer?
I.E. You believe "Marketing"?
I don't need more proof than my own eyes to see that the game we got is not the one we were promisedAs the old legal proverb goes; it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
So far that article lacks any weight of proof.
Far to many people are complaining about "promised" features that were never mentioned, or mentioned only is passing, or part of demos clearly labeled "WORK IN PROGRESS, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL LOOK OF THE GAME".
The bugs and inability of the game to run on current gen consoles ARE issues CDPR management (not the devs) need to answer for. But large percentage of the most vocal "criticism" centers around things people wanted to see in CP2077. Guess what, no game, ever, will be the game you want with every feature you want.
There are several features and game mechanics in CP2077 I, personally, am unhappy with. But that's, for the most part, not CDPR fault/problem.
YOUR (unrealistic) expectations being unfulfilled is not a valid reason to bash a game.
And in my eye the journalist responded rather decently to it.
I expected nothing more than The Witcher 3 in the future, and I got much less than that. cdpr ain't gonna pay for defending them, even they acknowledged the fact that the game is below "their standards"Far to many people are complaining about "promised" features that were never mentioned, or mentioned only is passing, or part of demos clearly labeled "WORK IN PROGRESS, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL LOOK OF THE GAME".
The bugs and inability of the game to run on current gen consoles ARE issues CDPR management (not the devs) need to answer for. But large percentage of the most vocal "criticism" centers around things people wanted to see in CP2077. Guess what, no game, ever, will be the game you want with every feature you want.
There are several features and game mechanics in CP2077 I, personally, am unhappy with. But that's, for the most part, not CDPR fault/problem.
YOUR (unrealistic) expectations being unfulfilled is not a valid reason to bash a game.
That absolves the company that lies in their marketing to drive sales?I'm guessing this some folks first lesson in trusting what they see in the E3 demo?