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.
Firstly, the conversation is on the topic -- we're not making any personal criticisms. Please, don't take things personally. I'm responding to your argument, as you're responding to mine. I'm not making anyone out to be anything; it is an analysis of the "hype was misleading!" argument based on established facts and business practice.
Do I have criticisms of CDPR's marketing and PR? Yes, I do! I've never worked anywhere in which I didn't disagree with at least a few things that were handled in ways I just didn't like. (Strangely enough, people disagree with me about my views, as well.) I feel that CDPR could have been far more forthcoming in the frequency of information that was being delivered and the way it was being delivered. I felt that they could have been far more proactive, PR-wise, during the whole development process, as it was no mystery to me that people were getting some wild and crazy ideas that weren't coming from the studio. I feel that several important issues (over time, not only concerning CP2077) were simply not addressed properly, and the way certain things were handled showed a lack of conviction and consistency. For example, I don't waste a too much energy on "trying to prevent issues"; I focus on responding effectively and decisively when something inevitably goes wrong. I take a clear stance, let people think what they want, and handle issues that crop up face-to-face, eye-to-eye. I don't try to defend myself or excuse myself. I prefer to be the first to say, "This was my mistake, and this is how I'm going to fix it," and I'm equally quick to stand my ground in the face of overwhelming odds and say, "That's not acceptable, and it's not going to pass here." And I handle both situations with arms flung wide. If someone decides to take a shot at me, I sure hope they don't hurt their hand too much. However, I've never worked for any company that has been comfortable with that level of conviction. There are usually too many different minds and too much money involved, and people nowadays tend to avoid conflict rather than deal with it in a "Band-Aid off quick" style.
But, just as I have been honest above with the criticism, I am being equally honest when I say that I have never once, not in over 6 years that I've worked with them, seen a single person at CDPR do anything that I would even remotely call dishonest or unscrupulous. And that is pretty, damn rare. I've argued strongly at times for things to be handled differently, but that doesn't mean that things were handled
wrongly. I'd simply have chosen a different approach.
I also stand by this view for CP2077, as I have seen and read pretty much every video, interview, or press release that came from the studio. I've got nothing that I would call misleading in any way. I have also seen and read many online sources, from Reddit posts to big-name magazines, that were claiming knowledge and making statements that made me go all Spock in the eyebrows. There's certainly been no shortage of that.
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."...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...
And that's a perfectly valid opinion. But it's still only an opinion. Others can argue (and have argued) differently, according to their own opinions. In order to go anywhere decisively with this, we need to provide preponderance of the evidence -- objectively -- that the marketing was intentionally misleading. That it was purposefully fostering
misinformation, then did not deliver those things in any form at release.
This will not be proven. What can be objectively proven is that CDPR had great ambitions for their game, and they shared that ambition with their consumers. They took some artistic liberties with their trailers, which were specifically and clearly identified as scripted renderings and not in-game footage. I can sit here and link to
hundreds of gameplay trailers that show camera elements or gameplay features that were later changed or cut from the games, or so wildly different from actual gameplay that it's plainly obvious they were manipulated in the trailer for artistic effect. Hundreds upon hundreds of games, going back for decades. It's a well established technique for film, television, and gaming. Arguing anything other than this would be disingenuous to an absolute extreme. (No has said this here, but many others have definitely gone there.)
So the advertising campaign continued. Yup, as time passed, like with any game, they made some changes and cuts. The wall running with mantis blades didn't make it in (...the bit shown in the E3 demo from
three years prior to release, with
"Everything you see is subject to change," plastered everywhere). The approach to hacking also changed. Customization screen was redone. Menus were different. Graphics engine was balanced...
Hm...I guess...a lot happens between
conceptual,
work in progress, and
finished product. So, just having a great idea doesn't automatically mean it will work out that way in the end. I suppose that's indicative of a creative process that's limited by the confines of reality.
Thus, the studio said, as any studio would:
"We've got something here, even if it's not every last thing we wanted to include! Let's sell our work as best we can! We still have a really great storyline. The characters are very well-done, and the technology for detailed dialogue interactions is fantastic! The gameworld is every bit detailed as we could have hoped, and we've got lots of unique and distinctive environments. We've filled the game with side quests and little storylines, and the main story fleshes out all of the big areas and factions in pretty awesome style. Players will have a blast with this!"
Or, are they expected to say:
"No -- wait -- maybe players will be disappointed because GTA has better driving, and RDR2 has more detailed shop interactions, and Call of Duty has better shooting mechanics. Let's not pay attention to our accomplishments and instead just accept that our game is probably rubbish since we're doing it differently. We may not have enough obviously branching quests for some players to think that it's worthy of calling the game "open-ended". And I guess there may not enough character build options, so some people may not agree that it's an RPG. If only we had included the ability to play guitar at night clubs whenever you wanted, we could have claimed that there were side-activities...because NCPD missions, cyper-psycho missions, theft gigs, assassination gigs, racing, fighting tournaments, and small, optional story missions aren't enough to truly claim side-activities. We also can't claim that we were trying to make the most realistic open-world environment to date, since last-gen consoles will have trouble achieving the same level of detail, crowd sizes, and draw distances as top-of-the-line hardware. Let's instead advertise the game for what it obviously is:
"Ahem...
"Cyberpunk 2077 is a fairly limited, sort-of open-world RPG that's primarily aimed at satisfying GTA V players. We've confirmed this through many anonymous social media sources. We also offer a storyline based on classical literary themes re-imagined for Mike Pondsmith's Cyberpunk universe, and a dynamic, motion-captured dialogue system that may be disappointing to players that don't like stuff like that. There's also numerous side activities to engage in, but maybe not enough to entertain players that would rather just randomly shoot civilians on the street. You have three basic classes to choose from, or mix and match to your desired gameplay approach, but despite the fact that it allows for every conceivable mix of ranged or melee combat, stealth, technical skill, or hacking that will provide options throughout the game, it's most likely that some players will have wanted it to be different. In the end, this is something we were loosely calling a role-playing experience, but because it's so narrative, it's probably more like a shooter instead because other people have insisted it is. We hope you enjoy!"
The game was advertised for
exactly what it is. Not liking it, or having a different opinion of what "next-gen" should mean, or thinking another game is better at something, or feeling that certain role-playing aspects should not be called "role-playing", or encountering bugs and glitches...does not make a studio guilty of misrepresenting its game. That means that the individual didn't like the game. They're not required to. No worries there. If a company offers a product that is truly of no quality, they'll go out of business. If they're truly fraudulent, it'll be settled in court.
They certainly won't go on to sell 13.7 million copies despite offering extended refunds to dissatisfied customers.
If anyone is going to claim dishonesty, they're going to need factual evidence, not really strong opinions and/or lots of likes on social media. (And again, I'm not referring to you, personally, in any way. I'm talking about the bulk of the complaints that CDPR fostered misleading "hype". They didn't. Others did. CDPR is not responsible for anyone's statements or actions but their own. No studio is responsible for what goes on in other people's minds.)
That's why I said we can break down any NC Wire you like -- to look at the
facts of the situation. Not wanting to address the word-for-word language used, the specific game content shown, in the actual context of the NC Wire at the time it was released, is reinforcing my point. People were simply coming up with their own interpretations. They wanted to be super-excited about it, so they let themselves be super-excited about it. Then, they were disappointed when the game didn't live up to their interpretations, expectations, and assumptions. As I said earlier, that's disappointing. I liked the game! Spent far too much time in my playthrough doing cyper-psycho missions and other random gigs before finally getting to the heist. All of that play time must be due to how utterly terrible the open-world stuff is. But to each their own. And that door swings both ways.
With no hard evidence backing up the claims of misleading advertising, this is a lesson in how not to make assumptions and avoid getting carried away by hype.
