Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Truth in Advertising - No Man's Sky

(1/3) > >>

BenRG:
Well, I suppose it was bound to happen eventually but, from what I gather, this was a more egregious example than most. Indie developer Hello Games and Valve, operator of the Steam site, are being investigated by Britain's Advertising Standards Agency over allegations that No Man's Sky's "promotional materials do not accurately represent the game experience".

I know that there is a lot of anger that Hello Games apparently cut a huge amount of promised content and features from the release version of No Man's Sky and that a lot of players think that they've been charged $60 for a $30 game. I also know that Hello Games didn't earn any friends by publicly musing that this promised content may only be available (should it ever become available) as premium paid-for DLC rather than as a free patch. I also know that Sony (the game's publisher) have gently criticised them for over-promising features and seem to be hanging them out to dry by saying they had nothing to do with it.

What can the ASA do? As I understand it, not that much although they could apparently order any search engine operating in Britain (including giants like Google) not to link to Steam until they removed the offending materials from their site. That alone could be an earthquake. However, they could easily pass the file onto other regulators that might possibly fine Valve for knowingly publishing inaccurate adverts. This could be considered a green light for lawsuits in the far larger US market, where Steam's revised refund policy over NMS is raising the temperature in many a gamer's bedroom.

So, what does this mean to gamers out there? Will the furore over No Man's Sky lead to a new level of caution and honesty in game marketing materials or will the industry throw Hello Games under a bus and claim that they were unrepresentative bad apples before going on to continue to make cinematic CGI trailers with "Not Real In-Game Footage" in tiny lettering at the bottom of the screen?

pwhodges:
Here's a working link.


--- Quote from: BenRG on 28 Sep 2016, 23:34 ---they could apparently order any search engine operating in Britain (including giants like Google) not to link to Steam until they removed the offending materials from their site.
--- End quote ---

I think that relates only to paid-for result placement, which is a form of advertising:

--- Quote ---The ASA has the power to have advertisements it believes are in breach of its code of conduct withdrawn, and prevent them from appearing again. If an advertiser refuses to comply with an ASA ruling, it can impose sanctions, such as asking internet search websites to remove a marketer's paid-for search ads.
--- End quote ---

BenRG:
FWIW, I suspect that Hello were planning an 'Elite: Dangerous'-style development strategy. The initial release would be the basic game (exploration, world-generation engine and the basic alien interactions) and they would start slotting in the other stuff (factions, faction-based quests, advanced ship & suit customisation, the Atlas quest thread actually meaning something and maybe even player-to-player sight and interaction) as either free patches for small stuff or as paid DLC for the big things as and when it finished the development cycle.

However, I think Sean Murray got too excited and couldn't communicate correctly or clearly what was on offer in release 1.0 verses the future plans for the game. This has cost the game a huge amount of goodwill and may end up its epitaph, as well as that of Hello Games as it currently exists.

Neko_Ali:
I don't think what we've seen backs this theory up though. When you look at interviews he keeps talking about things they were working on that never made it to the game. To be honest, it feels more like Peter Molyneux level of stuff than anything else to me. Just keep saying stuff that you are working on will be in the game, then releasing said game with a lot of those features cut. Molyneux gets a pass on it because he's an established figure who is well known for doing this. People know when he talks to believe that about half of what he says will make it into the final product. It's become a guessing game as to what will make it in, and what will be cut.

Sean Murry doesn't have that luxury though. People thought what he said was all going to be included, when he was just talking about what they were working on. And they weren't clear when features were being cut. Possible because they realized it would make them look bad? Not that failing to deliver on what Murray talked about in interviews wasn't shooting themselves in the kneecap. None of this is an excuse for either Molyneux or Murray. They got over excited by things they wanted to put in game, without realizing the situation where not everything they promise can be finished in time.

Their second failing is not communicating what had to be cut for the final release, there by giving a false impression of what was going to be in the game. It was bad marketing and over pricing their product that is killing them and making people angry. The game is perfectly fine for what it is. It just isn't what it was promised it would be, and it's not worth $60. The price to value ratio is just not there. Had they been upfront and cut the price they wouldn't have had this back lash, and they could have spent more time improving the game then dealing with the PR backlash they generated.

Kugai:
I'm wondering if this will have implications for Star Citizen considering the protracted and drawn out nature of that games development.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page