‘promise’ or simply a feature that was deprioritised in place of something else? that’s the thing, everything has a cost, you cannot deliver everything, so you pick stuff. reality is a lot more complicated than jsut broken promises, no-one wants to break a promise, but choices for the best have to be made all the time. The alternative is the almost dead waterfall development life cycle – I promised to build ABCDEF even if tastes change or context changes or other issues arise that are critical.
they promised -> they lied -> they over hyped etc etc. Notices its always assumed that a decision was made in error.
I get defending Anet from attacks, I really do. But they dropped the ball. They said “if you buy this game, this thing will be in it” and when it was bought, that thing was not in it. That means the product was incomplete. That means ArenaNet over promised. That means ArenaNet messed up.
So yes, it is as simple as a broken promise, because if they were not sure it would be available at launch, they should not have promisd it. There objectively WAS a decision made in error. That decision was marketing stuff that didn’t end up in game.
If they had, from the beginning, said “here are a list of things we would LIKE to achieve, but it’s possible they won’t arrive”, that would have made things okay because they did not promise that all those things would be there. But promoting things that might not make it into the game is a BAD marketing strategy, so you promise everything that you feel you can finish. But, if you do that, you run the risk of not having some of those things ready by launch, aka an error in decision making occurred. Of course no one wants to break promises, but the marketing of HoT was messed up. HoT was marketed with things that weren’t there.
You can’t argue around this. The marketing of the game did not take into account the development process and the players are rightly frustrated with undelivered promises because the marketing department messed up. So yes, objectively speaking, there was an error in decision making. Objectively, ArenaNet messed up. And it’s a shame too, because what they did release was awesome. What promises WERE kept were awesome.
In short, understanding the development cycle does NOT mean that the disconnect between what was marketed and what was released cannot be criticised. It should be criticised because if game companies can get off scot free for promising things that don’t make it into the game, it could lead to an industry wide practice of deliberately promising things that were never part of the design process.
Hell, that trend already exists with certain companies and developers (aliens: colonial marines, evolve, everything Peter Molyneux worked on like Godus, a LOT of EA games shipped unfinished and there are countless more examples out there), ArenaNet is NOT one of those companies. I have absolutely no doubt ArenaNet intended on delivering everything they promised. But the reality is, they over promised and they under delivered and it needs to be criticised.
It IS worth mentioning that the development of living world season 3 is doing a lot of things right and is making up for some of the undelivered content, so definitely props to ArenaNet for at least attempting to follow through on some of the undelivered promises. But ArenaNet isn’t free from criticism. No one should be.