This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can’t be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
I don’t think Hello Games lied as much as you may think. Sony lied, and others layered their own expectations on top.
HG turned to Sony for publishing and marketing help. Sony, like any game publisher, wants to get as many sales as possible, preferrably on release day to look the best (for further marketing when sales slow down: “X million dollars on release day”/“Y copies sold on release day” kind of stuff). So Sony had a huge hand in promoting the game, and undoubtedly crunched time on HG, reducing their ability to get what they wanted to out the door.
Plus, people hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read sometimes. Game journalists and streamers and influencers and such layered their expectation on each other, chalking up the game to more than was promised by HG, only to be disappointed when it wasn’t. Murray even said the day before its release that it “maybe isn’t the game you imagined”.
And sure, not to absolve HG of all the blame here, there was underdelivery and bugs. They got swept up in a storm of shit larger than they were ready for. They probably could have said more at the bungled release, but I wonder how much (if any) they couldn’t because of Sony’s hands in the PR. Iirc they were allowing returns of the game past normal return timelines? Given all of that, though, they committed to their game, even when Sony left, and even if players left and didn’t come back. That’s why people talk about it’s comeback story.
For Cyberpunk, though, I’m less supportive of that comeback story because CDPR had other majorly-known games (Witcher). They knew how game-dev-crunching and publisher pressure reduces their ability to deliver. They understood how marketing grows hype and expectations of their games. They even saw how NMS’s release went, and they still fumbled their release horribly. I’m happy for those that play CP2077 and enjoy it today, but I’m less on-board for that one.