this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
64 points (95.7% liked)
Games
16785 readers
847 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The issue with Cyberpunk was 100% a problem created by the marketing team and executives giving false promises and ideas about the content of the game, and rather than admitting they were wrong, forcing the developers to change what they were developing into the game the marketing team was marketing.
False promises didn't make broken perks (anything related to knife throwing) or useless skill tree (crafting) or police spawning right behind you or cars being completely undriveable on higher speeds or all the other things they fixed after release.
Marketing was an issue but there were things wrong with the game that had nothing to do with marketing. The game was broken even if marketing had been on point.
If the executives tell the developers they need to add or change something to match what the marketing team put out and that they have limited time to do it, those changes can have adverse effects on other systems that may have already been in the game before the changes were mandated. Altering something simple can sometimes lead to other systems behaving incorrectly especially if you don't have enough time to implement it properly, this is a very common thing that happens all the time in programming.
Why are you assuming the marketing team could do whatever they want and then management just goes "guess we're doing that now"? Did they hold the directors (or whoever they got in front of the camera) at gun point to force them to say they're going to do things they weren't planning to do? Even if we somehow accept that are true it still opens up the question of why wasn't this then properly planned into the roadmap and have timelines adjusted? Or did the marketing also dictate the timeline?
It's more likely marketing also did what management told them to do and the poor management is what got us the bad marketing material and poor quality product.
We can agree that management was the issue and that marketing generally sucks (I've had first hand experience where marketing/sales fucks over the devs because they never even talked to us, with normal management that happens only once), but I don't think you can or should blame marketing to the extent that you have.
I wouldn't say 100%. Marketing wasn't responsible for releasing on platforms that couldn't actually run the game properly..