That'd be the point. Advertising/marketing a product could be about providing relevant information so a consumer can make an informed decision. It could also be about trying to trick them into making an uninformed decision. Either approach can land a sale. The second approach has become so common it's now an accepted norm. Incidentally people become desensitized to it.
You cannot claim false advertisement willy-nilly for shock value and be surprised when you get called out on the legal basis of that claim which is indeed a legal allegation that is unsubstantiated.
Here is the thing.... It's possible to make claims and statements and deliberately phrase them a certain way to create a desired expectation in the customer. It's also possible to leave those claims vague while doing it. For obvious reasons. Then someone comes along and asks for elaboration and the response is "work in progress", "not ready to talk about that", "don't want to spoil it" or something along these lines.
All of this type of stuff isn't paired together by accident. It's not a mistake. It's thought about. It's premeditated.
For nearly everything they said or claimed there is an element of the game offering it. It's not a question of whether it was included. It's about how it was included and the context. When a corner is clearly cut or functionality is lowballed the provider shouldn't be given praise. They should be criticized for it. This is why I don't get the hoopla over cut content. The complaint is valid but the reasoning behind it isn't. The wrong tree is being barked up.
You gotta admit it gets a bit tiresome to feel like you're in the toilet bowl staring at someones asshole with the ability to speak when you parse through a feature list or experience the marketing train. Then you turn your head to the side and see that big brown object floating in the bowl and realize who is talking. Yes, I realize it's commonplace. There are many people. There are a lot of pieces of shit too .
Sadly, as a consumer there isn't much recourse. Product A plays the smoke and mirrors game so you look at product B only to realize it's doing it's playing too. But.... those engaging and supporting such practices shouldn't be defended because "it's marketing" or absolved of all blame either. When that is done it merely serves as incentives for product providers to engage in and support the practice even more.
I can't bring myself to think it makes sense to defer blame from CDPR here. Sure, let's say it's everyone elses fault. Progress.
They don't play in the same category. Maybe less dramatic for Microsoft to refund the game
There is one thing that frankly disappointed me when I read all the complaints and reviews a few weeks after Cyberpunk came out.
I was the first to leave a review (obviously positive) on the game on the Xbox store in France. And that was january 5th... In any case, it was empty before my review
If it was so bad and disappointed so many people, why nobody had left a bad review before (normally, it's pretty quick) ?
It doesn't take a month to tell yourself that the game is bad... (in addition I think, that in France, we are cataloged as a really grumpy)
I can't agree
Since I watch advertisings (sadly, a good while), it's like that. Maybe not all, but hey... It's not new at all.
I would tend to say it's as old as the world.
It's not as if Sony are poor. In this day and age your online store should have a fairly easy way to refund stuff. Better than throwing the game out of your store and making it impossible for interested players to buy something from you...Maybe they should update their return policy.
The Prologue has The Heist as the main quest line, which is compiled together by smaller quests that have several objectives which can ultimately help or hinder the final outcome of the quest.
The Main Narrative Arc has The Relic as the main quest line, which is compiled together by smaller quests that have several objectives which can ultimately help or hinder the final outcome of the quest.
The Side Quests work on the same principle and also have a fail state, some of the gigs connect with each other to form a chain of events that can influence side quests as well.
Yeah I think The Prologue is a fair representation of the rest of the game.
Bravo for rhetoric. But all you said here is that the prologue quest is representative of the main quest because... both are quests. Quests with events that shape up a finale. I'm asking about SPECIFIC QUALITIES OF QUEST DESIGN:
1) branching
2) decisions and outcomes affecting gameplay as in different set of enemies, bosses and items to loot
3) decisions and outcomes affecting other quests throughout the rest of the game
What's wrong with Reddit? Just because someone mentioned it on Reddit doesn't mean it's not true. As for the statements I listed, I heard them directly from trailers, wire series and the E3 demo.
Subjective terms, you have the right to be reactive to them, of course, but they're not proof of anything other than marketing and investor speech which is intentionally vague and leaves room for interpretations.
Sorry, are you saying that it's ok to be dishonest as long as it's about the money? What do investors have to do with anything? Even devs were making memes out of RELEASED: WHEN READY (leaks from stolen data) because they knew long before us what was brewing. When it comes to the scale of the project, the budget and the the extent of marketing, this is the most underdeveloped game ever. No, sir, no room for interpretation of RELEASED: WHEN READY.
Also, the finale part of the main questline is definitely more complex in that it three completely different quests depending on choices, with numerous variations within those quests.
It has 4 variations access to which is contingent on previous fulfilling of certain conditions. But the quest itself, once chosen, has no other numerous variations within (outside of the final narrative choice Johnny or V). It's basically the same final level with extra content depending on the "choice on the roof," which choice then - combined with the Johnny-V choice - selects the epilogue. Some narrative details in the epilogue are also contingent on some previous choices. But none if it has much impact on gameplay itself outside the suicide path which is harder and the extra content. And imo is not all that complex.
I'm not saying it's bad but the Maelstrom quest is more complex despite being a small scale side thing. The Mealstrom quest is imo exemplary when it comes to side-quest design, and the fact it's not even remotely matched by anything else in the game is very dissappointing.
That'd be the point. Advertising/marketing a product could be about providing relevant information so a consumer can make an informed decision. It could also be about trying to trick them into making an uninformed decision. Either approach can land a sale. The second approach has become so common it's now an accepted norm. Incidentally people become desensitized to it.
It wasn't false advertisement.
Here is the thing.... It's possible to make claims and statements and deliberately phrase them a certain way to create a desired expectation in the customer. It's also possible to leave those claims vague while doing it. For obvious reasons. Then someone comes along and asks for elaboration and the response is "work in progress", "not ready to talk about that", "don't want to spoil it" or something along these lines.
All of this type of stuff isn't paired together by accident. It's not a mistake. It's thought about. It's premeditated.
For nearly everything they said or claimed there is an element of the game offering it. It's not a question of whether it was included. It's about how it was included and the context. When a corner is clearly cut or functionality is lowballed the provider shouldn't be given praise. They should be criticized for it. This is why I don't get the hoopla over cut content. The complaint is valid but the reasoning behind it isn't. The wrong tree is being barked up.
Of course, and I just as well as many do criticize them for it, they're still behaving like an entirely smaller and less competent company and it shows in their gameplay design decisions.
But expecting something completely out of their repertoire is totally wrong, based on speculation and hopeful thinking.
Which is why I have a problem with some unfounded criticism like ''promised content'', ''promised mechanics'' et. al.
You gotta admit it gets a bit tiresome to feel like you're in the toilet bowl staring at someones asshole with the ability to speak when you parse through a feature list or experience the marketing train. Then you turn your head to the side and see that big brown object floating in the bowl and realize who is talking. Yes, I realize it's commonplace. There are many people. There are a lot of pieces of shit too .
I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking I'm afraid, I'm more of the impression that things don't always pan out the way one plans even if all the elements are seemingly working in tandem.
Do you follow motorsports?
As for the marketing involved, I'm afraid I'm completely insensitive when it comes to it.
Sadly, as a consumer there isn't much recourse. Product A plays the smoke and mirrors game so you look at product B only to realize it's doing it's playing too. But.... those engaging and supporting such practices shouldn't be defended because "it's marketing" or absolved of all blame either. When that is done it merely serves as incentives for product providers to engage in and support the practice even more.
I can't bring myself to think it makes sense to defer blame from CDPR here. Sure, let's say it's everyone elses fault. Progress.
I don't believe that it's the blame itself that people have issue with, it's the disproportionate amount that the company seemed to have garnered over the course of this release.
Of course if it bothers you that much you indeed have to react to it in whatever way you see fit.
But I personally find the marketing buzz to be immaterial in my case, since I prefer to do research into the things that I enjoy doing and be informed before I make a purchase (not all the time of course, sometimes I prefer to take a leap of faith).
It's not a one way street.
Look beyond the smoke and mirrors as best as you can, and if you cannot afford to risk a purchase maybe it's smarter to wait for a while before you do it.
Bravo for rhetoric. But all you said here is that the prologue quest is representative of the main quest because... both are quests. Quests with events that shape up a finale. I'm asking about SPECIFIC QUALITIES OF QUEST DESIGN:
1) branching
2) decisions and outcomes affecting gameplay as in different set of enemies, bosses and items to loot
3) decisions and outcomes affecting other quests throughout the rest of the game
I'd be curious to see, because I followed the same trailers and gameplay footages and I can't recall where they actually claimed any of that.
At most I recall a throwaway line regarding one of the vehicles that was supposedly fast enough to outrun the law.
Don't get me wrong, I did expect a little more gameplay revolving the awesome vehicles, and perhaps a more robust wanted system, but it's not at all the reason why I got the game in the first place.
Sorry, are you saying that it's ok to be dishonest as long as it's about the money? What do investors have to do with anything? Even devs were making memes out of RELEASED: WHEN READY (leaks from stolen data) because they knew long before us what was brewing. When it comes to the scale of the project, the budget and the the extent of marketing, this is the most underdeveloped game ever. No, sir, no room for interpretation of RELEASED: WHEN READY.
It was regarding the two lines you've posted, the first one is part of the trailers and promotional materials as a marketing slogan, the second one was from an investor meeting, that was all.
I'm sorry you feel that way but it doesn't make it true, yes it was a let down in many respects but resorting to hyperbole doesn't help the situation, neither is stirring more negativity half a year later.
It has 4 variations access to which is contingent on previous fulfilling of certain conditions. But the quest itself, once chosen, has no other numerous variations within (outside of the final narrative choice Johnny or V). It's basically the same final level with extra content depending on the "choice on the roof," which choice then - combined with the Johnny-V choice - selects the epilogue. Some narrative details in the epilogue are also contingent on some previous choices. But none if it has much impact on gameplay itself outside the suicide path which is harder and the extra content. And imo is not all that complex.
I'm not saying it's bad but the Maelstrom quest is more complex despite being a small scale side thing. The Mealstrom quest is imo exemplary when it comes to side-quest design, and the fact it's not even remotely matched by anything else in the game is very dissappointing.
But you're forgetting all the factors that influence that final decision, you can go against Johnny all the way and be cut out of Rogue's ending, or on the flip side you can be close to Johnny and have a different variation of The Legend ending.
Likewise with Panam and the Aldecaldos.
Then the romantic interests affect the ending as well, changing the overall impression and feel.
Not to mention the context added to the endings by doing quests for the characters involved (like the extra quests surrounding Kerry and the band, Judy's lust for revenge and escape, Panam's journey back into The Aldecaldos and her proving herself to Saul etc.).
Depending on how you approach any of those scenarios the context of those endings changes.
Even side quests like The Peralez gives a different interpretation to one of the two Legend endings.
And other quests along the way that help define the characters present like how you deal with Woodman, Tyger Claws and The Voodoo Boys (latter of which I hoped that they would have followed up upon, that's my disappointment).
But as I mentioned before, there is a buildup towards The Pickup quest that form these branching paths (you cannot access the branches if you don't follow up on the other quests before it, like meeting up with Meredith), just like there is a buildup towards one of the four ways you can approach the end game.
There's multiple objectives that help define the branches in both The Prologue and The Main Quest.
Which is what I was trying to portray by using the word ''microcosm''.
I don't think is healthy for a good gaming industry or for any industry if we are willing to shrug and forgive unhetical pratices.
It is well documented how the marketing were misrepresenting the final product at the point they told many things that were bluntly not accurate (To don't use another term otherwise moderators will get upset)
The moment you accept such pratices is the moment you have no right to complain about anything.
Just saying.
Here where we live there are laws about such things.
The moment the Marketing to sell the product is willing to made up things or put ambiguous statements inside to create false expectation.
Is not only not honest. But is also a bad sign from a company that praised herself in past about his transparency and honesty.
I do believe in the quality of a product and honest marketing. If what you make is so good you don't have to made up things to promote it.
I don't think is healthy for a good gaming industry or for any industry if we are willing to shrug and forgive unhetical pratices.
It is well documented how the marketing were misrepresenting the final product at the point they told many things that were bluntly not accurate (To don't use another term otherwise moderators will get upset)
The moment you accept such pratices is the moment you have no right to complain about anything.
Just saying.
Here where we live there are laws about such things.
I'm sorry if I come across as confrontive with the following statement, but here it goes:
I firmly believe that there are more important stuff to spend ones energy on than getting upset at hyperbolic claims made by corporations selling their products.
I do however agree that such tactics are unnecessary, but they are highly effective on an uneducated and/or ignorant society.
Hype and excitement around a product launch is great! You want your customers excited about the product. As hype goes, it was probably the prefect storm, millions of people off work and school stuck in their homes trying to ignore the very real problems around them.
People needed something to look forward to. I think there has been a lot of transference behaviour from consumers. Frustrations with Cyberpunk have become an outlet for a lot of anger that needed a release and CDPR made themselves an easy target.
I'm not saying they wouldn't have taken a kicking for the launch under normal circumstances, I just feel that maybe the viceral nature of some of the criticism is amplified by the emotions surrounding 2020 more generally.
Hype and excitement around a product launch is great! You want your customers excited about the product. As hype goes, it was probably the prefect storm, millions of people off work and school stuck in their homes trying to ignore the very real problems around them.
People needed something to look forward to. I think there has been a lot of transference behaviour from consumers. Frustrations with Cyberpunk have become an outlet for a lot of anger that needed a release and CDPR made themselves an easy target.
I'm not saying they wouldn't have taken a kicking for the launch under normal circumstances, I just feel that maybe the viceral nature of some of the criticism is amplified by the emotions surrounding 2020 more generally.
That is an interesting theory however is not the case. The people were upset because they found in theyr hand a product that was far from what promised if they got upset about it is perfectly normal as they were the ones that had the right to be.
If i tell you i will deliver you a crate of apples and i told you they were made naturally not using any chemical additive and absolutely healthy of a great quality.
The moment you will reiceve an half empty crate of apples and half of them are even rotten and you discover that i indeed use chemicals additives you get upset.
It is natural and is right because i told you something that was far from the reality.
Is thinking that is right to shot not accurate things in order to sell a product that is clearly far of what you advertized that is distorted.
That is an interesting theory however is not the case. The people were upset because they found in theyr hand a product that was far from what promised if they got upset about it is perfectly normal as they were the ones that had the right to be.
If i tell you i will deliver you a crate of apples and i told you they were made naturally not using any chemical additive and absolutely healthy of a great quality.
The moment you will reiceve an half empty crate of apples and half of them are even rotten and you discover that i indeed use chemicals additives you get upset.
It is natural and is right because i told you something that was far from the reality.
Is thinking that is right to shot not accurate things in order to sell a product that is clearly far of what you advertized that is distorted.
yeah, but technically you still got apples - so we're all good... right? Right?? Nobody lied. We said you'd get apples. One or two of them aren't chemically treated...
/s
That is an interesting theory however is not the case. The people were upset because they found in theyr hand a product that was far from what promised if they got upset about it is perfectly normal as they were the ones that had the right to be.
If i tell you i will deliver you a crate of apples and i told you they were made naturally not using any chemical additive and absolutely healthy of a great quality.
The moment you will reiceve an half empty crate of apples and half of them are even rotten and you discover that i indeed use chemicals additives you get upset.
It is natural and is right because i told you something that was far from the reality.
Is thinking that is right to shot not accurate things in order to sell a product that is clearly far of what you advertized that is distorted.
I'm not saying people wouldn't have been upset anyway, or that the disappointment wasn't valid, I just wonder if people needed an outlet which made the level of upset worse.
I don't agree with this "it's marketing" stance. A generalistic burger comercial will have what we have become used to. It comes down to taste and nutrient levels. When we're talking about entertainment promotion we're mixing functionality with art, a product with the functional goal to entertain (and all the functional goals of making it playable) but that will be entangled with all the artistic propositions and whether those suit the sensitivities of its audience. We can discuss whether a movie trailer is effective - not only does it appeal to those that end up wanting to watch the movie but does it represent well it's themes, aesthetic, the pace,...
Furthermore a "seller" of an artistic product (or creator/s) will hopefully want to defend their artistic vision. To missrepresent the product at its promotion should be critissized not only out of respect for the consumers but for their pride and in the long run, the composure of their artistic names.
I'm a contemporary dancer and creator myself and used to work with choreographers that, as soon as they feel their work being missrepresented by (for example) a theater announcement will not drop the ball until it is corrected.
The false advertizing of CDPR to me, was that. Several Night city wires that focused mostly on the open world elements (the gangs, the fashion, the branching story and exploration, the "living in Night City") when the game's focus was something else entirely.
This isn't hyperbolizing everything into Immersive, Spectacular,... it's a strategy of missrepresenting their vision for what they chose to be their statement for sales. It doesn't respect the fans of the type of game they created nor the fans of the types of games they advertized for.
And in this case the hype came very much from the source, gaining a life of its own, which was recognized by CDPR and further fueled because in the end it was a narrative, a well made narrative created by narrative creators.
I love the Witcher 3, love/hate CP2077 on ps4 pro. I have lots of good things to say about their games and unfortunately a lot of attitudes to criticize aswell, the marketing was just deplorable.
EDIT: as I finished reading the last comments of the thread. And I agree that there is a timeline for these things, different development stages but, at some point, if they realize they can't do all they set out to do, the humility to withdraw on some statements instead of continuing the narrative
Well, let's start drawing clean lines here, if you want. Let's refer to a specific NC Wire and exactly what was shown and what was said, word-for-word. Your choice -- anything you want.
Step 1: We'll start discussing the difference between what was actually said, and what people may interpret it to mean in their minds. These are often drastically different things.
Step 2: We'll look at whether or not those elements are actually in the game, regardless of people's opinions of how good or bad they are. Then, we'll talk about why we think those elements failed to live up to expectations.
Step 3: We'll talk about rights and damages that can be claimed. Meaning, "I, as a consumer, am not happy with the product I purchased for [InsertSpecificReasons]. What are my options?" We'll then identify if those options have or have not been honored.
My prognosis:
The argument will break down right at step 1. People superimposing their own assumptions and excitement onto what was being said. They fell victim to "hype" instead of remaining attentive and rational. They allowed 3rd-party media and outside influences to cloud their understanding of the actual words coming out of the designers' and developers' mouths. They did not acknowledge or remember that what was being shown was a work-in-progress and subject to changes, despite being specifically and repeatedly told. Most importantly, they may be under the severely mistaken impression that a studio is responsible for living up to their personal expectations and assumptions. This is already well established as untrue throughout international law.
If we get to step 2, we'll see that a few elements were rather clunkily or simplistically implemented, sure. They're there, but they're not done in a way that "Wows!" players. This is a let-down for a lot of players. For a lot of others, they didn't really care, and enjoyed the parts of the game that were done magnificently: the actual game world, the characters, the customization, the storyline, the dialogue, the versatility offered by the gameplay, etc. We'll arrive at a pretty clear conclusion that very little actually shown was not in the game. (It's just that people thought it was going to be different or bigger in their minds. Not because of anything ever said or shown by the studio, but because other sources were running rampant with the hype and saying things that were simply not grounded or completely false.)
And for step 3, we'll conclude pretty quickly that no matter what the discrepancy or argument may be, any consumer has the following options. They may choose to make educated purchases, or they may choose to purchase blindly, on faith. That is the responsibility of the consumer, not the seller. If a product is damaged, dysfunctional, or in any way not up to the consumer's desires, the consumer has the right to seek a refund for the product, though this may be limited by the vendor the consumer chose to purchase through. It is the consumer's responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions they are under at the time of their purchase. We will also be able to prove, in very short order, that CDPR went out of its way, of its own volition, to acknowledge consumers that were not happy with the state of the game, offering an extended period to seek a refund.
In the end, what will be clear is that many consumers were not impressed by the state of the game at launch, and they were given every opportunity to make themselves whole if they were dissatisfied with the game. That is where the rights of a consumer end. There is no guarantee, at any level, in any industry, that a given consumer will be satisfied with a given product. There is no guarantee that a consumer will interpret the advertisement of a product accurately. There is no guarantee that a consumer will not listen to inaccurate or falsified information from other sources. They have the right to be satisfied with a product or to be made whole via a refund if the product is not satisfactory. That's it.
But you're forgetting all the factors that influence that final decision, you can go against Johnny all the way and be cut out of Rogue's ending, or on the flip side you can be close to Johnny and have a different variation of The Legend ending.
Likewise with Panam and the Aldecaldos.
Then the romantic interests affect the ending as well, changing the overall impression and feel.
Not to mention the context added to the endings by doing quests for the characters involved (like the extra quests surrounding Kerry and the band, Judy's lust for revenge and escape, Panam's journey back into The Aldecaldos and her proving herself to Saul etc.).
Depending on how you approach any of those scenarios the context of those endings changes.
Even side quests like The Peralez gives a different interpretation to one of the two Legend endings.
And other quests along the way that help define the characters present like how you deal with Woodman, Tyger Claws and The Voodoo Boys (latter of which I hoped that they would have followed up upon, that's my disappointment).
But as I mentioned before, there is a buildup towards The Pickup quest that form these branching paths (you cannot access the branches if you don't follow up on the other quests before it, like meeting up with Meredith), just like there is a buildup towards one of the four ways you can approach the end game.
There's multiple objectives that help define the branches in both The Prologue and The Main Quest.
Which is what I was trying to portray by using the word ''microcosm''.
I agree with all that. I actually mentioned all of it in my previous post but without listing all the particular examples. What you did not stress, however, is that those variations and outcomes are mostly narrative in nature. You get a different dialogue or a different cutscene. Gameplay itself is not affected for the most part. This is why I insist that the Mealstrom quest is on a completely different level of quest design.
But let me yield on the matter the final quest. I agree. It's also well designed in how different outcomes are contingent on your decisions throughout the game. So... we got two. The Mealstrom and the final. What about the rest? There is still nothing throughout the whole game that would compare to the Mealstrom quest in the level of quest design. Whereas - getting back to the main topic - the demo clearly said, after describing all the goodies in this particular quest, that this is "just one mission" as if there were many others like it.
I'm not gonna analyze the words like a state attorney to see this was legal or not. We already know this was legal because of the work-in-progress disclaimer. So it makes no sense to do that. Let's focus on other matters instead. Was it truthful? Of course not. Was it ethical? Of course not. Was it like - as is argued here - what everyone else in the business does? Of course not, no other game has ever been advertised on this scale, misrepresented to this extent*, and got so many "blind" sales before the public even knew what the product really was.
Of course not, no other game has ever been advertised on this scale, misrepresented to this extent*, and got so many "blind" sales before the public even knew what the product really was.
To come back to the hype, for me it's a bit the same all the time when you start a new project. At the beginning, on paper, it's always great, you have lots of "awesome" ideas, on what you plan to do/create. But at the end, sadly, it never turns out as planned.
Small concrete (stupid) example for me:
At the start of each minecraft server, my buddies and me, we always had great projects... "we are going to do this, this and that... it will be great and way better than last year..." But finally, we had to go to the obvious that would not be possible or very difficult...
Like a stupidly giant tree base with all automatic farms as avaible, a giant chests room with a giant sorting system,... And finally, with time passing, we had to come back down to earth... Because it would have been a real "LagLand", that we would have to cut wood/leaves for years and that with only 256 blocks high, it would never have looked like a tree...
If we had advertised at the start, it would have been a good idea to add "does not represent the finished product", because indeed that was not the case at the end.
Little equation for fun : ((A+B)xC)xD=Z
A : Dev & creative teams who had awesome ideas and planned to create the best game possible (with their own vision).
B : Advertising & Financial teams who wanted to create a craze for the game (for sell it obviously, CDPR is not a charity work).
C : Thousands/millions of players who was wait the game like a messiah (each with their own vision of the game).
D : Influencers & Medias who wanted to generate views (Catastrophes are always the most popular).
Z : Predictable and certainly inevitable disaster.
I agree with all that. I actually mentioned all of it in my previous post but without listing all the particular examples. What you did not stress, however, is that those variations and outcomes are mostly narrative in nature. You get a different dialogue or a different cutscene. Gameplay itself is not affected for the most part. This is why I insist that the Mealstrom quest is on a completely different level of quest design.
But let me yield on the matter the final quest. I agree. It's also well designed in how different outcomes are contingent on your decisions throughout the game. So... we got two. The Mealstrom and the final. What about the rest? There is still nothing throughout the whole game that would compare to the Mealstrom quest in the level of quest design. Whereas - getting back to the main topic - the demo clearly said, after describing all the goodies in this particular quest, that this is "just one mission" as if there were many others like it.
So we're ignoring Clouds, Tyger Claws, Voodoo Boys, Arasaka Industrial Park, The Aldecaldos, Johnny/Rogue and several of side quests and gigs?
Now I agree that the quest itself is a neatly packed package with two different approaches based on how you approach the dialogue and what you decided with Meredith.
But again, during the Prologue, The Pickup is the culmination of all the quests before it (it's a singular mission), none of the quests leading up to The Pickup had the complexity of it because it was the climax of The Prologue before The Heist.
Which is the same structure presented in the main quest.
I'm not gonna analyze the words like a state attorney to see this was legal or not. We already know this was legal because of the work-in-progress disclaimer. So it makes no sense to do that. Let's focus on other matters instead. Was it truthful? Of course not. Was it ethical? Of course not. Was it like - as is argued here - what everyone else in the business does? Of course not, no other game has ever been advertised on this scale, misrepresented to this extent*, and got so many "blind" sales before the public even knew what the product really was.
What a coincidence, I'm a Star Citizen backer and having a blast with that one as well.
It's also one of the most successful projects and backed almost entirely by the fans...
So we're either all blind needing of one such as yourself to open our eyes or ... this is a crazy notion ... people find value in different ways, have different expectations and interpretations.
What seemed to have been misrepresented to you did not seem so to me, maybe I'm just really good at reading between the lines but I knew exactly what I was going for when I purchased Cyberpunk and backed Star Citizen.
NMS was developed by 10 people, wasn't it? That's less than 2% of CP77's team. And budget? Probably about 3% of CP77's? And similarly sized marketing campaign. Comparing NMS to CP77 is like comparing a back alley swindler to Bernie Madeoff.
Also, NMS was fixed. And at this I highly doubt CP will ever be fixed, sorry (though I understand that the idea of "fixed" is subjective). It's been over 6 months, and little changed in question of the broken RPG mechanics, dysfunctional AI and still being one of the buggiest and worst performing AAA games on the market. Though I do hope I'm wrong. The amount of work and talent in the game is staggering. Other studios would kill to get their hands on such talent. It such a shame that the management elected to waste it.
Off topic but a project cannot be successful by definition if it's not complete, and nobody knows when (or if ever) it will be complete. Also, at this point I realize there is no point in dragging this discussion any longer. Thanks for all replies.
What seemed to have been misrepresented to you did not seem so to me, maybe I'm just really good at reading between the lines but I knew exactly what I was going for when I purchased Cyberpunk and backed Star Citizen.
Funnily enough you're not the only one. All my criticisms in this thread are less about CDPR and more about all the extra work one must go through to accurately read between the lines. Some are better at it than others. The blessing of the cynicism characteristic. The thread is about hype. My own criticism there is customers shouldn't have to have a PHD in reading between the lines to get accurate information on a product. The practice and associated behaviors for advertisement/marketing don't deserve praise or defense.
In terms of CDPR specifically.... Dictating what reviewers and "influencers" can and cannot cover in pre-launch reviews tells you all you need to know about the priorities. The care placed into vague, open to interpretation claims clearly designed to generate unrealistic levels of expectation speaks for itself. It's not a one time event either. It's a pattern of behavior.
As a customer, even though it's not going to go anywhere, my personal feelings are it's not the right way to get me to buy their products. A mentally constructed reputation is formed in my head for the company. Points are docked for it. They can claim whatever they wish about their products. It has no value. It's an unreliable source of information. The relationship there is less like walking up to a friendly neighbor who has given every indication they can be trusted. It's more like walking up to a crackhead on the street to ask them to watch over my parked vehicle while visiting a bad neighborhood.
The confusion comes from defending such practices because they're the rule, not the exception, deferring all blame away from the product creator to everywhere else and acting like it's a good state of affairs.
Its funny to pretend that CDPR had no ability to curtail hype.
Its not like CDPR have a PR team that have access to Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Instagram, Tumblr, and Twitch which could have been used to reel in the hype and clarify aspects of the game .. and to state the games performance on base consoles.
Its ridiculous to suggest that CDPR had any ability to reach out to consumers or media to clear up misinformation or misunderstandings ...... wait ..
Well, let's start drawing clean lines here, if you want. Let's refer to a specific NC Wire and exactly what was shown and what was said, word-for-word. Your choice -- anything you want.
Step 1: We'll start discussing the difference between what was actually said, and what people may interpret it to mean in their minds. These are often drastically different things.
Step 2: We'll look at whether or not those elements are actually in the game, regardless of people's opinions of how good or bad they are. Then, we'll talk about why we think those elements failed to live up to expectations.
Step 3: We'll talk about rights and damages that can be claimed. Meaning, "I, as a consumer, am not happy with the product I purchased for [InsertSpecificReasons]. What are my options?" We'll then identify if those options have or have not been honored.
My prognosis:
The argument will break down right at step 1. People superimposing their own assumptions and excitement onto what was being said. They fell victim to "hype" instead of remaining attentive and rational. They allowed 3rd-party media and outside influences to cloud their understanding of the actual words coming out of the designers' and developers' mouths. They did not acknowledge or remember that what was being shown was a work-in-progress and subject to changes, despite being specifically and repeatedly told. Most importantly, they may be under the severely mistaken impression that a studio is responsible for living up to their personal expectations and assumptions. This is already well established as untrue throughout international law.
If we get to step 2, we'll see that a few elements were rather clunkily or simplistically implemented, sure. They're there, but they're not done in a way that "Wows!" players. This is a let-down for a lot of players. For a lot of others, they didn't really care, and enjoyed the parts of the game that were done magnificently: the actual game world, the characters, the customization, the storyline, the dialogue, the versatility offered by the gameplay, etc. We'll arrive at a pretty clear conclusion that very little actually shown was not in the game. (It's just that people thought it was going to be different or bigger in their minds. Not because of anything ever said or shown by the studio, but because other sources were running rampant with the hype and saying things that were simply not grounded or completely false.)
And for step 3, we'll conclude pretty quickly that no matter what the discrepancy or argument may be, any consumer has the following options. They may choose to make educated purchases, or they may choose to purchase blindly, on faith. That is the responsibility of the consumer, not the seller. If a product is damaged, dysfunctional, or in any way not up to the consumer's desires, the consumer has the right to seek a refund for the product, though this may be limited by the vendor the consumer chose to purchase through. It is the consumer's responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions they are under at the time of their purchase. We will also be able to prove, in very short order, that CDPR went out of its way, of its own volition, to acknowledge consumers that were not happy with the state of the game, offering an extended period to seek a refund.
In the end, what will be clear is that many consumers were not impressed by the state of the game at launch, and they were given every opportunity to make themselves whole if they were dissatisfied with the game. That is where the rights of a consumer end. There is no guarantee, at any level, in any industry, that a given consumer will be satisfied with a given product. There is no guarantee that a consumer will interpret the advertisement of a product accurately. There is no guarantee that a consumer will not listen to inaccurate or falsified information from other sources. They have the right to be satisfied with a product or to be made whole via a refund if the product is not satisfactory. That's it.
You know let's draw the lines and be thorough but let's not how you suggest, please.
First of all I tried to stay on the Hype topic, how it was created and grew for me, who is responsible and how. I post a lot of positive things about what is positive for me on the game so I don't apreciate being treated as a disatisfied customer that could refund (yes I chose not to and am not sorry for it) when I have negative things to say about some aspect of the game. In this case the PR. CDPR themselves admitted their marketing was flawed and have taken steps to correct this in the future. Do you have criticizms about their marketing? What could those be as it seems you completely agknowledge their actions in this regard.
For me, once again, it's the tone of their communications more than actual lose statements that painted the wrong picture. I'll not go down the steps 1, 2, 3 as I agree with some user that said "yes you can find probably most of these features even if in small amount or differently than what was expected." Let's take the dinner trailer for example. It's not even that you can't purchase apartments, customize stuf... it's that the tone of the game isn't that and as @ooodrin was saying, its directed at GTA players. Their marketing campaign decided to create the night city wires close to launch. It acompanied the last delay so they created more to keep us hooked. I didn't say they claimed a lot of false promisses. I said they focused on the open world features a lot more.
What is wrong with their campaign for me is that they weren't able to produce a good hype for the aspects the game deserves hype for, asside from being awfully dishonest about the console state, the promisse of a day one patch for al versions... no matter how good the game is it was dishonest back then, how they produced this hype machine to gather the prelaunch sales on all platforms. I would even say they used the goodwill everyone gave them to make these promisses (don't worry guys, surprisingly well on consoles; bugs on PC? well day 1 patch is coming...).
So, great developers, great aspects explored in this game that risked new concepts. Marketing that valued other aspects recognizable by today's gamers; rushed result that still ended as a great game for me, with a lot of shortcomings from the rush. The rush itself was a result of missmarketing (managing expectations), unrealistic release dates and internal misscommunication. The PR team are not made up of developers but the PR team should have been more in synch with the development of the game.
Finally about reading between the lines. It starts as an excuse already, no the marketing could have hyped us for the right reasons. Second I did know their way of creating games, in one franchise. Seeing as the company grew a lot and some people left... I didn't know how revolucionary they would be when changing to a new IP, a first person shooter...
. 
