Repeated zig-zags left developers, among other things, confused as to why "Captain Boomerang, known for fighting with his namesake weapon, would suddenly pivot to gunplay."
More about monetizing everything, preferring services over products, designing for maximum profit, making anti-piracy a higher priority than performance (when pirates just remove that part entirely and end up with a better experience than paying customers), etc... they aren't necessarily trained to produce bad content, but the bigger publically traded studios generally seem to be going down the enshitification path while smaller studios or teams continue to put out fun games that don't just feel like a money sucking machine with a video game mask on.
I'm not an expert on making videogames, but couldn't this game have been made with only a fraction of the budget? I mean, I heard there wasn't much content to begin with which is why so many people complain it's so repetitive. What was the money spent on? The massive headcount of artists and programmers working on the same small details? Overpriced consultants who are there just to critique the game's script as being "too offensive" on some parts? Reworks to plot points because overbearing producers want to find ways to shoehorn in some kind of paid DLC? The whole game is a money pit with no way to know how deep it goes.
They wanted it to be a live service, which is famously expensive to develop. They have to pay people to be constantly developing content on top of the insane prices of releasing and marketing a AAA game in the first place. Usually these games make money through microtransactions and/or subscription fees but no one wanted to play the game in the first place so hardly anyone was buying any of the extra content after initial release.