http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... ng-adverts

I’ve a copy of the game, and it does get a bit repetitive, but the fun is visiting new planets and seeing what’s there. That said, I get that people are annoyed because of what’s beeb touted around - but it was hyped to the max, possibly beyond what Hello Games said it would do.

Games 'marketing' has been about 90% hyperbole since the Sinclair Spectrum was a thing. The games related press has been complicit in this for literally decades. Quite why this particular game is being held to a standard pretty much no other video game is held to escapes me.

Either do something about the whole culture or just live with it. But scapegoating one company while leaving everyone else to happily carry on seems to me the essence of pointlessness.

I remember the Quicksilva games for the ZX81. You could not separate box artwork and gaming experience any further apart.

The Dev is on the record stating certain features would be in the released game and several are not. No Man's Sky has been a hype bubble from day 1.

Again, how is that different from a lot of other games? I can count the number of games that appeared with all the features they said they'd have, on the date they said they'd appear, with an appearance identical to the initial trailers that were shown of them on the fingers of one hand.

I didn't say it was different, although I'd rather applaud the ASA for going after him than say "meh, why bother, they're all at it".

He employed the same sh!t (or even sh!ttier) tactics to boost the pre-launch hype and pre-orders - he even did a video Q&A where he answered specific questions and stated which features were going to be there at launch.

Anyone remember the ads for Knight Rider on the C64? Fantastic looking game in the ads, 2 years later it died a silent death, it was so bad.

Or Atari's ET, so bad, they buried the lot in a pit, in the middle of nowhere! Archeologists dug it up about 2 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial

I didn't say that exactly, and I do appreciate that if you want to change something big you sometimes have to start with something specific - every journey begins with a single step and all that. It was more about the apparent prevailing notion that this is all about what Sean Murray has said or done. It's patently not. If we want to change things, it's fair enough to say 'OK, we're going to change things and you're first on the list, sorry, sucks to be you' but just picking one example and making it all about that one game or developer lets everyone else off the hook. If Murray gets keel-hauled and then everything goes back to normal (and let's be honest, if he's the only one that gets carpeted, that's exactly what will happen) what have we actually gained?

The thing that bothers me is there seems to be next to no consideration at all of the wider context or what needs to be achieved. It seems very much 'He lied to us, get him!' which is both in the end very unproductive and also actually unfair to the one poor sod who is getting the flack that in fact needs to be shared around a bit more.

The industry has a problem. Punishing Sean Murray for being part of that industry problem won't change the industry in and of itself.