Support NeoGAF

[Servbot24]

According to Giantbomb, ENB and From, the real game had severe framerate problems before the downgrade. We know that the E3/TGS demo, which was shown as far as late January, ran perfectly fine on PS3. So either they're all lying or what they showed us wasn't the real game, but a tech demo made separately. From could have been honest and show the real game from the beginning but chose instead to deceive us.

What build were they playing?

 

[tengiants]

So FROM did all the publishing and advertising in Japan right? Does Japan have a #YOULIED campaign? *put on tinfoil hat* or is this an effort by western publisher's (a specific one that I won't name) reputation management team trying to discredit Japanese developers to increase sales for a game that came out recently?

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

What build were they playing?

It certainly wasn't the E3/TGS demo.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Screenshots should show what the actual game looks like and not be doctored in any way.

From is probably not commenting because they don't want console people to get mad that pc players get the new lighting and they don't.

Pretty much. Considering the lighting is not just cosmetic either but elements of the gameplay and progression revolves around it.

For example.

Early/mid game spoilers below that highlight how detrimental the lighting changes are:

Spoiler

in No Man's Wharf, there is a giant torch you can light hanging from the ceiling by using a Pharros Lockstone. Considering this is one of the first truly brutal areas of the game, finding this giant torch would basically be a momentous, triumphant step forward, as it lights the whole area. With the original lighting I imagine this could have been a pretty iconic moment, as it would have bathed a huge pitch-black area in firelight.

As it stands, though, it makes a few enemies slightly annoyed at the fire and back off a bit. It's a total waste of a Lockstone. You can see everything without torches, so lighting the giant one is pointless.

This is the kind of compromise I don't like. This coupled with enemies "appearing" out of thin air, make it sound like they accidentally hit a switch. If you want spend $60 on good enough go ahead, but I'd like what they advertised.

Whether or not torches were a good idea has nothing to do with this discussion. The lighting effects seen in the Mansion of the Dragons is an example of that. If the problem was the torches, they could have just added more lights to those areas rather than ruin the entire lighting system. But I'm sure they will say the issue was power.

Also:

Torches have their own dedicated inventory slot and resource management (time) system, and sconces are everywhere. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a rare item that can be wasted on a reward of a giant torch in a relatively early area that is useless in the final build because you could see everything just fine anyway. There's zero stress involved in managing torch time because you can easily acquire 50+ minutes of burn time, as there is nothing to use the torches for. All of this remains, yet none of it really does anything.

Dark Souls 2 is good. That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to what was obviously a rushed, poor decision.

and:

No excuse for the removal in not--dark situations, like the castle in the gif.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

Reinstall the windows live client from the microsoft store

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/pc/downloadclient

Thank you, but it doesn't seem to work still.

 

[Hydranockz]

You keep harping on about the TGS demo as if it was the entire game from start to finish running perfetly fine when relly there was only a handful of locations shown. You have no real evidence to suggest that the TGS build ran smoothly throughout or that it it even contained all the same assets and content as the final build.

 

[Bronetta]

Namco did say they were going to market Dark Souls 2 as a full blown AAA title. Fake footage is just a part of AAA marketing.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

You keep harping on about the TGS demo as if it was the entire game from start to finish running perfetly fine when relly there was only a handful of locations shown. You have no real evidence to suggest that the TGS build ran smoothly throughout or that it it even contained all the same assets and content as the final build.

1) We have plenty of footage from TGS and there's also the PS Access video from late January.

2) Of course it doesn't contain all the assets and contents from the final build. It's a tech demo.

Namco did say they were going to market Dark Souls 2 as a full blown AAA title. Fake footage is just a part of AAA marketing.

They even beat Ubisoft at their own game.

 

[UnrealEck]

Nah, you're logical.



According to Giantbomb, ENB and From, the real game had severe framerate problems before the downgrade. We know that the E3/TGS demo, which was shown as far as late January, ran perfectly fine on PS3. So either they're all lying or what they showed us wasn't the real game, but a tech demo made separately. From could have been honest and show the real game from the beginning but chose instead to deceive us.

What do you mean by a tech demo? What would it consist of?

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

What do you mean by a tech demo? What would it consist of?

Early on in development, From took a couple of areas from the game and separately polished them as much as possible to show off to the press and the consumers. Since this was separate from the main development, the actual game never looked or ran as well as the demo.

 

[Grief.exe]

According to Giantbomb, ENB and From, the real game had severe framerate problems before the downgrade. We know that the E3/TGS demo, which was shown as far as late January, ran perfectly fine on PS3. So either they're all lying or what they showed us wasn't the real game, but a tech demo made separately. From could have been honest and show the real game from the beginning but chose instead to deceive us.

Honestly, this continually points towards From using the PC build with PS3 button prompts.

Its really an arbitrary discussion, but despite first hand accounts, this is literally the only plausible explanation. There is no 'magic sauce' that can get that particular build running at that IQ with those graphical effects at a solid frame rate.

 

[MogCakes]

From has never been in the business of delivering amazing graphics and aren't about to start. They have been known to bullshot as well. I'm still firmly in the camp of 'Bamco did the PR and is at least partly to blame', but I recognize I have a chip on my shoulder against their partnership.

They really shouldn't have responded at all given they essentially said 'it is what it is, take it or leave it' here, an answer that isn't going to satisfy anyone concerned about this.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I trust the Forbes source, to be honest.

 

[Grief.exe]

I trust the Forbes source, to be honest.

If the source is too be believed and they had these features finalized for the majority of the game, we could have a jaw-dropping PC version.

That, along with the removal of GFWL from the first game, would have be bowing at From's feet.

 

[Totobeni]

From has never been in the business of delivering amazing graphics and aren't about to start. They have been known to bullshot as well. I'm still firmly in the camp of 'Bamco did the PR and is at least partly to blame', but I recognize I have a chip on my shoulder against their partnership.

They really shouldn't have responded at all given they essentially said 'it is what it is, take it or leave it' here, an answer that isn't going to satisfy anyone concerned about this.

The one make the superior demo and published all the video and went in interviewers hyping the graphics and new engine and hiding the real version from the puplic were From (IP owners have the final call), is Namco part of it yes they are but this all was From doing and Namco was riding with them on that boat.

 

[Biker19]

"We confess. But you will buy the game anyway so whatever"

And they're right. The series is popular now.

I'll be honest, Dark Souls II is not a particularly nice looking PS3 game. It doesn't run very well either. Optimization, performance, and graphical fidelity have always been some of FROM's weaknesses.

Sad. Dark Souls I was perfect on the PS3, yet they fuck up the sequel on the same console.

 

[ebullientprism]

If you want a game that does everything you want, just how you want it. Here's a pro-tip: Code it yourself. Otherwise expect the people making the game to have the final say in what they think is for the best.

This is such a terrible argument. And you can apply it to virtually any criticism anyone could have of anything ever.

And that is coming from someone who thinks the whole notion of #youlied is pathetic and sad.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Honestly, this continually points towards From using the PC build with PS3 button prompts.

Its really an arbitrary discussion, but despite first hand accounts, this is literally the only plausible explanation. There is no 'magic sauce' that can get that particular build running at that IQ with those graphical effects at a solid frame rate.

Plenty of games look just as good as that demo, no reason to think a PC is needed to run it nor doubt dark10x.

Maybe they outsourced it to TOSE, lol.

 

[Hydranockz]

The one make the superior demo and published all the video and went in interviewers hyping the graphics and new engine and hiding the real version from the puplic were From (IP owners have the final call), is Namco part of it yes they are but this all was From doing and Namco was riding with them on that boat.

Who does this??

 

[plumpblumpkin]

Okay, So let me get this straight. Judging from the Forbes article they downgraded because it wasn't performing well on the consoles?

Good. Okay cool.

So that means the PC version shouldn't be affected then right.. RIGHT??

I swear to god if they downgraded the PC version as well because of this parity bullshit I'm gonna go bat shit insane.

 

[KCroxtonJr]

1) We have plenty of footage from TGS and there's also the PS Access video from late January.

2) Of course it doesn't contain all the assets and contents from the final build. It's a tech demo.



They even beat Ubisoft at their own game.

Footage of a ten minute slice from a game that can easily take 40+ hours to beat is plenty enough to come to the conclusion that the entire game ran perfectly fine? lmfao.

Gotta love all of the excellent logic in this thread!

The only people I blame for all of this are the people who bitched about the network test being too dark, none of this would have happened if it weren't for those guys!!!

 

[Grief.exe]

Okay, So let me get this straight. Judging from the Forbes article they downgraded because it wasn't performing well on the consoles?

Good. Okay cool.

So that means the PC version shouldn't be affected then right.. RIGHT??

I swear to god if they downgraded the PC version as well because of this parity bullshit I'm gonna go bat shit insane.

Just have to wait and see, the evidence is sure heading in that direction.

Realistically, if From had downgraded the PC version, wouldn't they have been releasing more information? Keeping us this in the dark can only be justified if Bandai is worried about cannibalizing console sales.
If the versions were the exact same, other than the usual resolution/frame rate, then people would not be as quick to pick up the game a second time.

 

[KCroxtonJr]

Just have to wait and see, the evidence is sure heading in that direction.

Realistically, if From had downgraded the PC version, wouldn't they have been releasing more information? Keeping us this in the dark can only be justified if Bandai is worried about cannibalizing console sales.
If the versions were the exact same, other than the usual resolution/frame rate, then people would not be as quick to pick up the game a second time.

Keeping us in the dark can also be justified if the PC version has just been in the same/even worse condition than the consoles...and the 6 week delay was so that all the people who noticed the bait and switch/epic downgrade had time to calm down and still purchase the game anyways even though it will look the same.

 

[Timmy00]

So Namco thinks they've settled the argument and they have nothing else to say

They also refuse to offer any comfort to PC users or any additional media that might reassure those awaiting the PC version you can read more of this non-answer at Videogamer.com

Well that's disappointing to read.

Keep rewarding these companies for shitty behavior. Thank you.

Come on, no need to be a jerk to the dude. :/

 

[Havel]

Keeping us in the dark can also be justified if the PC version has just been in the same/even worse condition than the consoles...and the 6 week delay was so that all the people who noticed the bait and switch/epic downgrade had time to calm down and still purchase the game anyways even though it will look the same.

Months ago, before the downgrade even happened, From said that the PC version would land weeks after the console version.

 

[Grief.exe]

Keeping us in the dark can also be justified if the PC version has just been in the same/even worse condition than the consoles...and the 6 week delay was so that all the people who noticed the bait and switch/epic downgrade had time to calm down and still purchase the game anyways even though it will look the same.

Totally a possibility, I just tend to lean towards the optimistic.

If Bandai wishes to maximize their revenue in the short term, then releasing a PC version with upgraded visuals would do it.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Keep rewarding these companies for shitty behavior. Thank you.

If I were a developer, I just wouldn't put things out until it's ready for release. You're toxic and have a vendetta.

 

[Totobeni]

Who does this??

From.

they kept showing that superior looking demo for months and hid what the game actually look like till a week or so before the release.

 

[Artorias]

Kinda funny to see people who have never played the game discussing No Mans Wharf and saying the torch does nothing but light the place up.

Keep fighting the good fight. I'm not saying you can't get through there without the torch, but even watching a video would tell you that you're wrong about it being useless. Who has time for that though.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Footage of a ten minute slice from a game that can easily take 40+ hours to beat is plenty enough to come to the conclusion that the entire game ran perfectly fine? lmfao.

Quite the opposite. My point is that From created a very polished demo of a couple of areas to show off while the actual game was a mess.

If I were a developer, I just wouldn't put things out until it's ready for release. You're toxic and have a vendetta.

Yep, I have a vendetta against lying companies.

 

[Stoze]

Kinda funny to see people who have never played the game discussing No Mans Wharf and saying the torch does nothing but light the place up.

Keep fighting the good fight. I'm not saying you can't get through there without the torch, but even watching a video would tell you that you're wrong about it being useless. Who has time for that though.

Actually the torch is nearly useless in that area in particular, because

Spoiler

there's a pharros lock early on that when activated lights up every single sconce in the area, and then some. Granted you need a stone to activate it.

The Gutter on the other hand is a different story, but yesterday I saw someone with their brightness cranked up and blazed through it.

 

[KCroxtonJr]

From.

they kept showing that superior looking demo for months and hide what the game actually look like till a week or so before the release.

Or....in the final stage of development....the POLISH STAGE...they were unable to reach a polish level they were happy with that included the better graphics and therefore had to downgrade to reach an acceptable level of polish.

Also, bullshit about hiding the actual game till about a week before release. You could see the game had become downgraded (textures and geometry) in some of the later showings, TGS for example. Still had the lighting though, which means they tried their hardest to keep that in as it was last to go. And they showed pics of the game with the final downgraded graphics in January, maybe even before that.

At least get your timelines and shit correct if you're going to try and bash someone lol

 

[UnrealEck]

Early on in development, From took a couple of areas from the game and separately polished them as much as possible to show off to the press and the consumers. Since this was separate from the main development, the actual game never looked or ran as well as the demo.

Or perhaps it was the game running on a PC. I doubt they took time out of their schedule to work on a seperate build to deceive people. Quite an extreme and absurd conclusion to jump to.

Plenty of games look just as good as that demo, no reason to think a PC is needed to run it nor doubt dark10x.

This isn't plenty of games. It's Dark Souls 2.

 

[_machine]

Also, bullshit about hiding the actual game till about a week before release. You could see the game had become downgraded (textures and geometry) in some of the later showings. Still had the lighting though, which means they tried their hardest to keep that in as it was last to go. And they showed pics of the game with the final downgraded graphics in January, maybe even before that.

Definitely this; some of you are completely disregarding that they did show footage already different from the trade show demos or the network test. You're completely disregarding that the only way to make a demo is polish a game in development as much as possible to get close to the final product (which means performance or game design features will be different from the final version because you can get away with a lot of the restricions the final game might have). You're attacking the guys who probably worked 12hrs a day to make the best possible game they could within the timeframe. They made a lot of mistakes, but so does every developer in the planet, but it just bit them back bad. You're completely disregarding that the actual effort of the downgrade isn't that big of a thing especially when you factor in how it looks like to be done (as in tone down the dynamic lighting, which they didn't remove just scaled down to minimal performance effect, and added lot's ambient light resulting in varying quality and effecting the torches too, they swapped to earlier/other level's assets within a few areas.) and that we already saw some of these things happen before the launch.

And before you completely disregard me as an apologist, let me say that I completely agree that false advertising should never happen (but there's a fine line what is false advertising and what is not, because that's really muddy and when hardly anyone is using actual gameplay footage in their trailers how can you compete when everyone seems to demand even more outrageous and amazing trailers), I'm still extremely unhappy how Namco/FROM handled the PC port of DS.

Have to requote the forbes article, because that sounds very plausible:

“This is what it comes down to: a playable framerate. The early builds that the screenshots came from were playable but only just so. The game was not in a state where it could be sold at that point. I strongly suspect that they were focusing heavily on delivering a top-notch experience on PC and underestimated the challenges the new systems would pose on PS3 / Xbox360. That’s my analysis, anyway. But, factually, the early builds played like Blighttown the entire game.

“I sincerely don’t think they intended to deceive, but in the end they sacrificed a huge amount of graphical fidelity at the very end of development because they couldn’t resolve the framerate in any other way. They had to promote the game with screens and trailers, but at that time even they had no idea they were going to have to drop the settings so much, I suspect.

“I want people to know the truth. I know a lot of people just feel lied to, but I think the reality is a bit different. It doesn’t mean they handled it properly, but I think they made the only decision they COULD make in the end. The game would have been much worse without the change (as in, many would call it unplayable and broken.)”

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Or perhaps it was the game running on a PC. I doubt they took time out of their schedule to work on a seperate build to deceive people. Quite an extreme and absurd conclusion to jump to.

Not at all. It's perfectly reasonable. Also dark10x confirmed that the demo ran on real PS3s.

This isn't plenty of games. It's Dark Souls 2.

Yep, the Dark Souls 2 that ran fine at E3 and TGS but not on consumers homes.

------------

We've already explained that the footage From released in the last month doesn't show the E3/TGS areas, making direct comparison impossible. All we could tell is that some areas looked good and others bad.

 

[KCroxtonJr]

Quite the opposite. My point is that From created a very polished demo of a couple of areas to show off while the actual game was a mess.

There is no point to your point. All developers do this.

The difference with Dark Souls 2, is that in the end they were unable to get the ENTIRE game to have that level of polish and performance, so the only option was to downgrade. This does not mean they lied. This means they failed to meet even their own expectations.

Seriously, yall are acting like someone at FROM saw a big red button that said "DOWNGRADE" and pressed it right before the game was released just for the heck of it.

 

[_machine]

We've already explained that the footage From released in the last month doesn't show the E3/TGS areas, making direct comparison impossible. All we could tell is that some areas looked good and others bad.

Why would it have been necessary to show those areas? It's not like the marketing team really thinks about comparisons or anything, they're just about making pretty trailers for the whole audience. Showing new areas is usually better for marketing than sticking to the same old things.

Yep, the Dark Souls 2 that ran fine at E3 and TGS but not on consumers homes.

Haven't you been already explained how trade show demos work? It's not the final product it's an estimate that can get away with a lot things the retail version possibly cannot.

 

[Comfort Jones]

They showed off screen shots of the retail version and pretty sure we got gameplay footage of it as well. Actually straight up saying OH BY THE WAY WE MADE THE GAME UGLY would be fucking terrible PR. There might be a loud campaign about this but I doubt it's going to really change anything.

I really dislike this idea that there was some malicious intent to deceive us here.

 

[Artorias]

Actually the torch is nearly useless in that area in particular, because

Spoiler

there's a pharros lock early on that when activated lights up every single sconce in the area, and then some. Granted you need a stone to activate it.

The Gutter on the other hand is a different story, but yesterday I saw someone with their brightness cranked up and blazed through it.

Well either or, but even with the lockstone in,

Spoiler

killing the Dark Stalkers are much easier with a torch in one hand. They will cower and rarely even attack. It makes for a very fun area in multiplayer, and one of the few areas where people regularly split off to clear different structures.

And the

Spoiler

Gutter

can certainly be easily passed through without a torch, but I think it adds a lot to the experience, and certainly makes secrets easier to find.

Spoiler

Shrine of Amana

as well. You can make the secrets much easier to reach with a torch, rather than messing with the camera angle constantly

Spoiler

to make out the edges of a chasm in the water

.

Don't get me wrong, looking at the before and after pictures bums me out a little bit. It's just annoying to pop in every once and a while and see these ridiculous claims that the torch is useless and its a changed game. The "From is lazy" angle is just so lazy. I used the torch quite a bit throughout the game. Maybe more than most people. Perhaps I could have just played with the gamma and made it look terrible but bright. I just think it's interesting that so much misinformation is forming in this thread.

 

[Garcia]

It's really amazing how big of a step down this game is (graphically) when compared to the other two Souls games.
Animations were downgraded too.The sense of weight in movement is gone.

And what's with the soft shadows around the character's feet?It looks as if they are wearing slippers. :/

In my opinion the game as a whole took several steps back in quality. On top of that, the product they shipped to me is insulting to play.

Apparently people enjoy getting deceived and will also keep defending these practices regardless of the developer or publisher. It is puzzling to see this community doing so much damage control for a company that's expecting to milk its fanbase as much as possible. I've already lost the count of the amount of people who just walk by to post "Yeah, the PS3 version looks like shit but I'll be glad when they finally release the PS4 version, it will kick ass".

It's almost depressing to read; I suppose they pretty much deserve to be treated like *sheep both by the developers and publishers who will keep charging full prices for incomplete products:

Unpolished, downgraded version (PS3/X360): $60
PC version, (still not there, but pretty close): $50
Final, "complete/platinum" version (PS4/XB1): $60

Some people are willing to pay $170 dollars for the same game. I don't care at all about what you do with your money but if you're unable to see the big picture here then I guess you're better off being constantly deceived and milked.

It is a sad state of affairs.

*Edit: Apologies for the previous remark.*

 

[DrROBschiz]

The game as a whole took several steps back in quality. On top of that, the product they shipped to me is insulting to play.

Apparently, people enjoy getting deceived and will also keep defending these practices regardless of the developer of publisher. It is puzzling to see this community doing so much damage control for a company that's expecting to milk their fanbase as much as possible. I've already lost the count of the amount of people who just walk by to post "Yeah, the PS3 version looks like shit but I'll be glad when they finally release the PS4 version, it will kick ass".

It's almost depressing to read; I suppose they pretty much deserve to be treated like idiots both by the developers and publishers who will keep charging full prices for incomplete products:

Unpolished, downgraded version (PS3/X360): $60
PC version, (still not there, but pretty close): $50
Final, "complete/platinum" version (PS4/XB1): $60

Some people are willing to pay $170 dollars for the same game. I don't care at all about what you do with your money but if you're unable to see the whole picture I guess you're better off being constantly deceived and milked.

It is a sad state of affairs.

While I disagree with many of your assertions I totally agree on this crazy pricing issue the AAA industry has

It has gotten better in some areas and worse in others of course. But seriously... 60 bucks is steep for last gen now.

 

[Fattony12000]

I should dig out the DS2 footage I shot during EGX 2013.

 

[Clear]

This is such a terrible argument. And you can apply it to virtually any criticism anyone could have of anything ever.

And that is coming from someone who thinks the whole notion of #youlied is pathetic and sad.

Wrong. Its 100% valid in the context it was used: i.e. arguing with someone who is unable to accept that the change they have an issue with, couldn't possibly be the lesser of two evils and hence the right choice.

Here's the thing: Because time and resources in development are inevitably finite, COMPROMISES ARE INEVITABLE.

But who's to say the right things were compromised on? Certainly not people outside of the dev-team who are severely lacking in actual knowledge/insight of the pro's and con's of the situation.

Such situations can arise up to the very end, and its simply not practical to keep the public appraised of every decision and the exact why's and wherefore's behind it. The logistics don't work when you have dev, publishing, and the media all working concurrently and to their own set of goals and deadlines.

This tri-partite arrangement is why the whole "conspiracy to mislead" narrative some people are pushing is so laughable - its shows unbelievable naivety as to the the complexity of the situation and likelihood of outdated resources being used by accident as much as design.

But then, anyone that thinks the great conspiracy between development, publishing, and the gaming press is why their opinion isn't being supported is deluding themselves.

When the rest of the gaming world, including half the people within your own community disagree with your outrage, then YOU are the one who should probably revise your opinion.

 

[HDgaming42]

When the rest of the gaming world, including half the people within your own community disagree with your outrage, then YOU are the one who should probably revise your opinion.

This is an absolutely terrible metric by which to judge...anything. Minority opinions should not be revised on the basis--oh DAMN IT MAN I keep forgetting about your tag.

I'm out.

 

[Clott]

I should dig out the DS2 footage I shot during EGX 2013.

Please do.

 

[Haunted]

With the recent rumours, it seems this is more a question of incompetence than of deceitful intent.

Just as likely a story, tbh.

 

[DrROBschiz]

With the recent rumours, it seems this is more a question of incompetence than of deceitful intent.

Just as likely a story, tbh.

Thats pretty much it

 

[Clear]

This is an absolutely terrible metric by which to judge...anything. Minority opinions should not be revised on the basis--oh DAMN IT MAN I keep forgetting about your tag.

I'm out.

Nice try, but you can only use that argument if (lack of) popularity is the SOLE reason for discounting an opinion, and not just one of a host of problems with the position.

And once again, I love this tag, its like catnip for knuckleheads who think they can apply it as a rebuttal in place of a reasoned, coherent argument.

 

[old manatee]

I don't know if you can call a statement that evasive a 'response'.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Seriously, yall are acting like someone at FROM saw a big red button that said "DOWNGRADE" and pressed it right before the game was released just for the heck of it.

No, they knew about the cuts long ago but simply chose to keep showing unrepresentative footage of the game without disclosing it as such.

As for the "all developers do this", show me another game where such a massive downgrade was kept secret right until a couple of weeks before release. One.

Why would it have been necessary to show those areas? It's not like the marketing team really thinks about comparisons or anything, they're just about making pretty trailers for the whole audience. Showing new areas is usually better for marketing than sticking to the same old things.

And yet that's what they did.

Haven't you been already explained how trade show demos work? It's not the final product it's an estimate that can get away with a lot things the retail version possibly cannot.

Companies don't keep showing a completely unrepresentative demo of the game one month before release without disclosing it as such ("this is alpha footage blah blah blah").

In my opinion the game as a whole took several steps back in quality. On top of that, the product they shipped to me is insulting to play.

Apparently people enjoy getting deceived and will also keep defending these practices regardless of the developer or publisher. It is puzzling to see this community doing so much damage control for a company that's expecting to milk its fanbase as much as possible. I've already lost the count of the amount of people who just walk by to post "Yeah, the PS3 version looks like shit but I'll be glad when they finally release the PS4 version, it will kick ass".

It's almost depressing to read; I suppose they pretty much deserve to be treated like idiots both by the developers and publishers who will keep charging full prices for incomplete products:

Unpolished, downgraded version (PS3/X360): $60
PC version, (still not there, but pretty close): $50
Final, "complete/platinum" version (PS4/XB1): $60

Some people are willing to pay $170 dollars for the same game. I don't care at all about what you do with your money but if you're unable to see the big picture here then I guess you're better off being constantly deceived and milked.

It is a sad state of affairs.

Indeed. As I said before, consumers are they own worst enemy.