Is word directly from publishers worth crap/ do you trust them at all?

[bartholen_v1legacy]

When I spotted this ----> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.826241-Ryse-Microtransactions-are-Nothing-Sinister-Microsoft-Promises news article on the Escapist newsfeed, my immediate reaction was "Tch, yeah, sure, of course, Microsoft". And judging from the comments, I wasn't the only one thinking that. That got me thinking:

Are we already so used to being fucked over by publishers (and why not devs? Mass Effect 3 wink wink), being fed false information or getting led completely wrong that we no longer take their word with a grain of salt, but rather treat it as complete bullshit from the get-go? With microtransactions, day one DLC, forced peripherals and generally bad handling of PR seeming to become more and more common, I doubt it's impossible. I hadn't really realized my stand on this until I reflected on my reaction to that article, and the mere headline made me immediately go "Pffft, yeah right". I might be exaggerating a bit, since MS has probably the least amount of goodwill from the gaming audience at the moment, but I know I wouldn't think of similar news from Activision or EA much more gently.

Thoughts?

 

[Pink Gregory]

Y'have to consider that Publishers don't have much to gain from not hyping their games. Much as I would like to see publishers adopt a more humble approach rather than balls-out bull-headed confidence in all things, investors wouldn't be too pleased with that.

Confidence sells, I suppose.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I rarely ever believe what a publisher or developer says unless it's explicitly shown to be true, and even then that doesn't mean I think it'll be good. A good example was Oblivion and it's "150 hand-crafted dungeons!", which were mostly just the exact same thing with a different layout.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

I guess it depends on the dev or publisher in the first place, and on the kind of news it is (micro-transactions with random loot is never a good thing, for example). With MS's history, you really can't trust what they say. I'd be wary of, say, EA and Gearbox (these are just examples), while others might get an automatic OK until they do something stupid (and then it depends on how stupid it is).

 

[MysticSlayer]

I find it rare for developers and publishers to completely lie about something. Sure, it isn't unheard of, but most developers and publishers are aware of what can happen to them if they deliberately falsely advertise their game.

With that said, though, I still don't fully trust them. Half-truths, design changes, ambiguous wording, and poor game design are all possible factors that could lead to their information being technically false, though they certainly won't get in any legal trouble for it. I'm sure most PC Call of Duty players can remember how both Treyarch and IW promised dedicated servers for Black Ops and MW3 respectively, but both came with a nasty twist that turned them into something unwanted/useless. Irrational advertised numerous features for BioShock Infinite that never made it into the final product (though, to be fair, Ken Levine said that was likely to happen). In this case, we really don't know enough about the tiers of Ryse in order to understand if the microtransactions don't have the potential to break it, and we won't until the game releases.

Basically, I just wait until a game releases and judge it on its own merit, removed (mostly) from what they advertised. Simply taking all the hype developers and publishers build around a game will inevitably lead to disappointment. Of course, it can help you see what does/doesn't have potential, but at the same time, I hardly trust it 100%.

 

[Zhukov]

Case-by-case basis?

I don't automatically assume they're lying or anything. That would be needlessly cynical. But it pays to bear in mind that these folks are, directly or indirectly, usually trying to sell you something. So ye olde grain-o-salt rule applies.

Of course a lot of the bullshit isn't complete lies rather than exaggeration, subjective statements or marketing speak.

I understand why they do it though. Imagine the reaction if a developer/publisher came out and said, "Yeah, our upcoming game is really average fare. The gameplay is basically just Gears of War, the aesthetic design is forgettable and the story was just some crap we cobbled together because we felt that it's expected these days."

 

[Dandark]

Publishers? It depends.

I will never believe EA, they have lied before and always spout crap.

However someone like the Witcher devs(CD Projekt red I think they are called) I would be more inclined to trust, I usaully like to trust Riot games when they talk about league too but I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Most of the time I will never trust publishers, especially when they are talking about how their microtransactions are totally fine.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I just tend to hope for the best and expect the worst from them. I dont automatically assume they are lying but I dont exactly trust them either.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Case-by-case basis?

I don't automatically assume they're lying or anything. That would be needlessly cynical. But it pays to bear in mind that these folks are, directly or indirectly, usually trying to sell you something. So ye olde grain-o-salt rule applies.

Of course a lot of the bullshit isn't complete lies rather than exaggeration, subjective statements or marketing speak.

I understand why they do it though. Imagine the reaction if a developer/publisher came out and said, "Yeah, our upcoming game is really average fare. The gameplay is basically just Gears of War, the aesthetic design is forgettable and the story was just some crap we cobbled together because we felt that it's expected these days."

And people shouldn't forget that overselling your product too much all the time is not exactly good for the image of your company and your games, so it is not in the self-interest of publishers to do that either.

 

[Mourning_Star]

I think it's mostly just a safe bet nowadays to take everything publishers say with grain of salt. There's too much misinformation and dodgy responses to questions and concerns to warrant my initial belief. Publishers have been proven time and time again to lie to the general public simply to boost their own image, like when John Riccitiello claimed games were too expensive, and yet EA's own Origin service charges the full $60 for new releases.

Maybe one day I'll believe publishers at face value. But today is not that day, sadly.

 

[Antari]

At no point will I ever trust any corporation. I am the last concern on the list as a customer.

 

[Drummodino]

Generally no I don't trust publishers. Or developers for that matter. The only ones that I will place some amount of faith in are the ones that have proven themselves to me before with quality games AND a relative lack of bullshit. Sony and 2K are the two I tend to listen to. EA, Zenimax, Ubisoft, Activision and the like I trust about as far as I can throw them. Suckerpunch, Mojang and Firaxis are probably the only developers that I truly like. Even Naughty Dog, as much as I love their games, have earned my suspicion with their actions (online passes anyone?).

 

[Simple Bluff]

Well the thing about these guys is, no matter what your opinion of them, they usually don't flat out lie. I think that's what really got me about the Always On Simcity debacle - Maxis' and EA's claim about it being necessary was absolutely false, but that doesn't normally happen. Say what you want about X1's crappy policies, at least MS were upfront about them.

I'm not a particularly untrustworthy type so I'll never presume any claims are false, within reason. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I "trust" them or whatever, but I don't distrust most of them either.

 

[krazykidd]

I don't really follow "gaming news". On my end it's more like : " cool x is coming out next year ". Then when it comes out i check a review or two.

 

[Floppertje]

There was a Dutch commerical for a cleaning product about 15 years ago, freely translated the line goes like this: 'We here at Toilet Duck recommend Toilet Duck'. No company is ever going to say 'hey, you know that product we want you to give us money for? totally sucks man!'
From their viewpoint, they're probably right, the microtransactions aren't evil at all. The question is whether or not their idea of sinister is the same as yours. to simply answer the question: I believe that THEY believe they're telling the truth. most of the time.

 

[glider4]

Depends who is saying it. But mostly no it doesnt mean anything. They just say what people want to hear as opposed to actually doing what people want

 

[Whispering Cynic]

No, I don't trust publishers. But then again I don't really trust anyone's words, unless I see some evidence to back those words up.

 

[Tazzman]

It's hard to trust lots of thing that comes out the mouth of someone who's trying to sell you something but I wouldn't go as far to say as everything they say is a massive lie. I tend to ignore the hype and just see what the game can do when it's been released.