They probably realized the game was going to be a failure given its apparent low quality and thus declined to invest any additional money in marketing. An advertising campaign that would actually move the needle on sales would be enormously expensive so its likely they decided to just write off the losses.
The game is rocking a 38 score on Metacritic right now, with a 3.0 from users.
Maybe we're just too soft on it. Then again, a lot of the bad reviews will probably include fan-boys and the backlash from the fake 10's.
Maybe, I gave it a three stars out of five in my review for WhatCulture
. I personally don't see the need to punish a game for not being the greatest of all time - I prefer reserving a 1 or 0 for games that are truly broken/irredeemable.
I think the reason we're not going on and on about how this game is the worst ever is because we're used to looking past the flaws of something (as long as those flaws aren't too widespread/deep to overcome). In a way, we're glass half full when it comes to Trek games, while most people are glass half empty.
Yep, when did we see the last Star Trek FPS?