To be fair this article really isn't saying anything new we didn't already speculate on or other journalists said.
- Status
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:
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.
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.
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:
1) you can get early feedback from customer and / or project stakeholders
2) you can see what work and what doesn't. Idea that seem "super smart" on paper may not be so cool after being implemented (one example for Cyberpunk would be how hacking works, in 2018 demo it was wired, now it is is wireless)
Sometimes the prototype is fully reutilized, partially reutilized, or completly thrown away, based of a lot of different factors that I cannot summarize, but that have nothing to do with "let's trick the customers because we are evil and greedy" like that journalist is trying to make us believe.
Now, I can understand that you are disapointed because some features shown there (unique takedowns, personalized ads etc...) did not make the final cut, and I thank you for your criticism. It will hopefully puish the developer to release an Enhnaced Edition, but please do not believe that there was some melevolent intent on CDPR side.
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.
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.
cdpr will never become another EA because EA doesn't have all their cards in one basket. So more like another BioWare
Last edited:
Except you know, playing the game. It’s kinda obvious.
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.
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"?
This article does not surprise me at all.
Honestly I was thinking something similar.
The project was too ambitious and I'm not surprised that CDPR released a "Mass Effect: Andromeda" with much better facial animations.
Honestly I enjoyed the game a lot, but it's shallow, buggy, with poor balance and zero replayability value.
I honestly hope they can pull a proper comeback in near future (around 1 year) but my trust in CDPR is near zero now despite CEO's poor excuses and tears.
Honestly I was thinking something similar.
The project was too ambitious and I'm not surprised that CDPR released a "Mass Effect: Andromeda" with much better facial animations.
Honestly I enjoyed the game a lot, but it's shallow, buggy, with poor balance and zero replayability value.
I honestly hope they can pull a proper comeback in near future (around 1 year) but my trust in CDPR is near zero now despite CEO's poor excuses and tears.
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.
Post automatically merged:
What kind of strawman...
If they try to sell me a product based on that marketing, they they are culpable. No?
I don't need more proof than my own eyes to see that the game we got is not the one we were promised
What a load of rubbish.
These were features used to market the game, most of them were never mentioned as not being in the game anymore.
It's a difference when features are changed and removed and this is communicated to the customers BEFORE they pay for the product, if like here we were lead to believe that all this would still be in the finished product, that has got nothing to do with unrealistic expectations.
Why do you feel the need to make claims like these which so obviously are simply not true? It's not like you'll get a medal from CDPR for defending them without rhyme or reason.
He basically went "Nah you're wrong."
Or to put it differently, Schreier again failed what basic journalists learn to do. Adjust wage niveaus for cost niveaus...
And with the linked article it's somewhat similar. It's shallow and generalized information - which could as well be your average magic trick of interpolating from wiedely available informations, make blanket statements that can hardly be proven wrong. Instead of having widely internally known, but externally unknown - statements about speicifcs.
And besides "it came out bad" - which most people here agree with - there's literally no sign for e.g. the decision to change direction in 2016 having been a bad one. Yet he claims it was a bad decision.
Huge respect for Schreier when he does good articles with good insight and research. But this one doesn't look that way. Yet i'm still sure he's right there about quite a few things - not hard given how CDPRs management already accepted the blame.
I'm guessing this some folks first lesson in trusting what they see in the E3 demo?
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"
That absolves the company that lies in their marketing to drive sales?
- Status