> what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself There are genres where this could and does work, but not in the niche Sunset is pl

> what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself There are genres where this could and does work, but not in the niche Sunset is playing in. > although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent I agree, and it's an easy trap to fall into for anyone. Spending money in all the wrong places is always a danger, and the problem is that the people you are paying of course won't tell you even if they know you're making a mistake. > instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is. Development shops and teams of all sizes can exhibit work dynamics where problem areas get ignored and sub-par stuff is getting churned out. In a big company this might be due to politics and power structures. In small shops this might be because you don't want to disappoint a close friend. Somebody at that company should have said "this is a good idea, and a promising prototype, now let's get back to the drawing board and keep iterating". In retrospect I don't get the bitterness expressed in the article. It's not like they lack talent, and it's not like they're drastically under-appreciated for unknowable reasons. Those would be reasons to quit. But not this. This is something you can learn from and improve on.