• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Game review reforms in light of day one DLC and microtransactions

B

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
good post, though I would take it even one step further..

reviewers should TRY NOT TO get the types of games you are talking about (boosted, full grind DLC, etc).Here's the problem. Even if they declare at the beginning "MS gave us full unlocks or gave us $100 store cash to work with" it still is easy for them to gloss over "well without $100 store cash, the grind is just stupid or unbearable"

I mean really the same as day 1 dlc to say extend out the story... they can give the review as "well we were given the dlc" but I am more interested in the review without the DLC..

honestly we should have reviews as the games are packaged. if there is DLC or F2P-like micro transactions, they should be a side box at best. Not actually in the review.
 
G

Glass Shark

Banned
P

PBY

Banned
This is my main issue with the OPs idea, which I think is fine btw- It makes game reviews even more into product reviews than they are already. I think game reviewers should try to get as far away from reviewing a "product" as they can.

I really don't like reviews that break down a game in such a way: Only 3 hours, 44 guns, XYZ features, and its 15 dollars.

That doesn't tell me anything about the reviewers subjective experience with the game. I want to hear about how the game affected the reviewer and his or her main reactions after playing the game.
 
P

Palette Swap

Member
zomgbbqftw said:
No, and that's the issue. They don't understand that the copies of games they receive digitally from publishers with all of the options unlocked either take hundreds of hours of grinding or hundreds of dollars through microtransactions to get. In their minds, the copy they play with all the options unlocked are $60 plus some amount of money for DLC which is no longer the case in a world of microtransactions.
Click to expand...

kadotsu said:
There's a problem with just using reviewers as a term, it's no a homogeneous group. Some do pay some don't and some won't hit the F2P gates because they need to write their review fast.

Then there is the worrying trend of reviewers being "above" the "product review", you can identify them by the constant use of the word experience. IMO the press should first master the product review before they do them big boy (or girl) reviews.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation, guys.

Given the situation, it looks like there's some nice meta-journalism to do and ask a number of big and small publications:
- if they have any awareness of day 1 DLC, its pricing and how it might affect actual gameplay.
- if they don't, ask them if they'd want to and if it might actually change some of their reviews. This might sound trivial but I know some reviewers tend to view a review as absolute and unrelated to pricing. As a consumer, I certainly don't share this editorial choice, obviously.
- how they would feel about mandating in every review a functional description of all launch available microtransactions. And being transparent about review conditions, just so we know how much our experience would match their own.

You know, just to have a picture of different practices and measure the width of the gap between some reviewers and the actual players.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
borghe said:
good post, though I would take it even one step further..

reviewers should TRY NOT TO get the types of games you are talking about (boosted, full grind DLC, etc).Here's the problem. Even if they declare at the beginning "MS gave us full unlocks or gave us $100 store cash to work with" it still is easy for them to gloss over "well without $100 store cash, the grind is just stupid or unbearable"

I mean really the same as day 1 dlc to say extend out the story... they can give the review as "well we were given the dlc" but I am more interested in the review without the DLC..

honestly we should have reviews as the games are packaged. if there is DLC or F2P-like micro transactions, they should be a side box at best. Not actually in the review.
Click to expand...

I think having a "price as reviewed" figure would be very helpful. It would put stuff into context for people.
 
S

Samyy

Member
peterb0y said:
This is my main issue with the OPs idea, which I think is fine btw- It makes game reviews even more into product reviews than they are already. I think game reviewers should try to get as far away from reviewing a "product" as they can.

I really don't like reviews that break down a game in such a way: Only 3 hours, 44 guns, XYZ features, and its 15 dollars.

That doesn't tell me anything about the reviewers subjective experience with the game. I want to hear about how the game affected the reviewer and his or her main reactions after playing the game.
Click to expand...

That is, as per your preference, however I think to a subset of consumer those things are very important.

For example, not many people are going to drop 60 bucks on a 3 hour experience, regardless of how amazing the reviewer thought it was right. I think its very important to have that general product breakdown, especially since publishers can't be expected to be completely transparent about some of those things, like game length.
 
T

Triggerhappytel

Member
I don't really give a shit about the games press any more. The last six or seven months have shown in no uncertain terms that they've more interest in keeping cosy with publishers than actually giving an honest opinion which benefits the consumer. The only sites I put any faith in are Gamecentral, Jim Sterling and sometimes Eurogamer.

GAF gives me all I need on the information and discussion front. I've really grown disinterested in traditional games press over the events of this year and becoming a regular here.
 
U

UnluckyKate

Member
We should write and promote a seal of independence and transparency that site should work for to have it displayed on their main page and on each review that says ' we were not pressure by the editor to write bullshit about their game and ignore terrible and outrageous policies '

The Gaf seal of quality gaming journalism
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
Gucci Messiah said:
This is exactly why I resort to GAF these days for honest opinions
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Few if any reviews take this into account anymore. In part because DLC and transactions are a known quantity. And in part self preservation.

I do wish they would make a point when they are egregious though, because from time to time we get a game that is effectively broken because of it.
 
N

nynt9

Member
peterb0y said:
This is my main issue with the OPs idea, which I think is fine btw- It makes game reviews even more into product reviews than they are already. I think game reviewers should try to get as far away from reviewing a "product" as they can.

I really don't like reviews that break down a game in such a way: Only 3 hours, 44 guns, XYZ features, and its 15 dollars.

That doesn't tell me anything about the reviewers subjective experience with the game. I want to hear about how the game affected the reviewer and his or her main reactions after playing the game.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't care for the opinion of people I don't really know and can't talk to, so the opinion of a random reviewer person is irrelevant to me. I want to know the facts of the game. Is it buggy? Are the microtransactions? How do the mechanics work? And if they really must go into opinion territory, they should talk about stuff like the feel of the controls, pacing of the story etc. Not how much of a moving experience the flashy story was or whatever.
 
S

Senor Kami

Banned
Wow, I thought they just went in and played the game cold like a normal buyer would ie not having content unlocked and day one DLC added, and microtran money, etc. If they play it cold, I don't think there's a need to state anything. Just report your experiences and thoughts about the game.
 
P

PBY

Banned
nynt9 said:
To be honest, I don't care for the opinion of people I don't really know and can't talk to, so the opinion of a random reviewer person is irrelevant to me. I want to know the facts of the game. Is it buggy? Are the microtransactions? How do the mechanics work? And if they really must go into opinion territory, they should talk about stuff like the feel of the controls, pacing of the story etc. Not how much of a moving experience the flashy story was or whatever.
Click to expand...

Man. This is the total, complete opposite of what I would read a review for.

I want opinion.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
if what the OP lays out has happened, that should absolutely be made clear in the reviews. you cannot fairly talk about the unlocking progression if you get the version where you don't have to do any unlocking.

it's not even just about day one DLC. how many sites compared versions of games based on things that weren't true for the people that bought them with Call of Duty Ghosts? How many sites updated and revised their comparisons?

how many sites will be comparing the unpatched AC4 at launch on PS4 with the Xbox One version?

what about Dead Rising 3... that game had a massive day one patch. were the reviews based on that version or not? questions questions. these things seem to be becoming much more common.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
peterb0y said:
Man. This is the total, complete opposite of what I would read a review for.

I want opinion.
Click to expand...

You want movie reviews of games. The problem is that movies don't have technical flaws or DLC or microtransactions and they don't cost $60 to watch.

There is a space in the market to encourage what you are asking for, but I think they need to get the basics right first. I do think this generation on PS4 you may see reviews more along the lines of what you ask because of the ease of development there will be fewer technical issues to spend column inches talking about.
 
P

PBY

Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
You want movie reviews of games. The problem is that movies don't have technical flaws or DLC or microtransactions and they don't cost $60 to watch.

There is a space in the market to encourage what you are asking for, but I think they need to get the basics right first. I do think this generation on PS4 you may see reviews more along the lines of what you ask because of the ease of development there will be fewer technical issues to spend column inches talking about.
Click to expand...

I agree with and hear your points, but I don't want all reviews to be forced into that mindset or face being called shills.
 
O

Orcastar

Member
I always find it funny to read these kinds of threads when the biggest gaming magazine in Finland, which has been published since 1992, suffers from none of these issues.

For example in their CoD Ghosts review, they said up front that the review was based on a review event and even remarked that the PS4 version did not seem to run at full 1080p.
 
B

BPoole

Member
I definitely think reviewers should highlight day one DLC in their reviews and comment on how fair or not they are. Having F2P pricing models in $60 games is ridiculous and should be discussed and criticized by reviewers.
 
S

SeventhSon

Member
peterb0y said:
This is my main issue with the OPs idea, which I think is fine btw- It makes game reviews even more into product reviews than they are already. I think game reviewers should try to get as far away from reviewing a "product" as they can.

I really don't like reviews that break down a game in such a way: Only 3 hours, 44 guns, XYZ features, and its 15 dollars.

That doesn't tell me anything about the reviewers subjective experience with the game. I want to hear about how the game affected the reviewer and his or her main reactions after playing the game.
Click to expand...

The reviewer's experience is being bolstered by getting the game for free with all the DLC and microtransactions unlocked, which the reader will not. Including this information allows the reader to evaluate the reviewer's experience in light of his own outlook.
 
A

ab.aeterno

Member
Went back and reread the Polygon review of Forza 5, and to no surprise, not a single mention of anything pertaining to microtransactions. How can you review the game and not mention them once, when the game goes out of its way to remind you often?
 
D

Derrick01

Banned
Reviewers don't even realize how much this garbage changes game design for the worse. I wouldn't expect them to be able to handle this as they don't even think it's a problem.
 
R

Roto13

Member
Oh, GAF. Never stop making shit up about game reviews just to have something to be outraged about.

Game reviewers aren't given weird versions of games that have everything unlocked from the start. The very idea is ridiculous. Nor are they given the pay-to-not-play DLC for games like Forza.
 
D

Deleted member 47027

Unconfirmed Member
Reviews should simply be about the game without even figuring in microtransactions.

If the game balance suffers, it'll be apparent as they play. So keep things how they are.

ab.aeterno said:
Went back and reread the Polygon review of Forza 5, and to no surprise, not a single mention of anything pertaining to microtransactions. How can you review the game and not mention them once, when the game goes out of its way to remind you often?
Click to expand...

It's really not overbearing at all, I had to go out of my way to get to it and I knew what I was looking for.
 
G

Glass Shark

Banned
Roto13 said:
Oh, GAF. Never stop making shit up about game reviews just to have something to be outraged about.

Game reviewers aren't given weird versions of games that have everything unlocked from the start. The very idea is ridiculous. Nor are they given the pay-to-not-play DLC for games like Forza.
Click to expand...

It's a little worrisome how many accusations are being made as "fact" in this thread without any evidence to back them up.
 
LiquidMetal14

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
ShockingAlberto said:
And eventually publishers will say "You can't talk about the microtransactions/freemium aspects because they won't be ready until launch" when sending out review copies.
Click to expand...

Then we start writing about that and give them hell.

I agree with the sentiments of the OP. These are little things in the relative importance of the world but in the gaming landscape this needs to be cleaned up. Pending how much companies do and tuck away behind DLC akin to Forza 5 then the reviews should reflect that.

I don't care all that much about the time saver type DLC but the pricing of it all is the joke. What happened to the good ole days of codes and secret button presses?

Now it's all charged for in the walled garden devs create within their game infrastructure or in the respective marketplaces.

I admit one thing though. Years ago Tales of Vesperia was hot and I remember seeing that money pack. I believe I bought the one for 5 dollars or something like that.

I have no problem paying for in game currency as long as it's not a ripoff and it saves me time. Something like Warframes prices for Platinum seem a little high. 5 dollars for 75 Plat. I think the 150 USD one gets you mods and 3200 Plat.

150 real dollars for 3200 in digital currency for 1 game? I love Warframe but no thanks.
 
D

Derrick01

Banned
Roto13 said:
Oh, GAF. Never stop making shit up about game reviews just to have something to be outraged about.

Game reviewers aren't given weird versions of games that have everything unlocked from the start. The very idea is ridiculous. Nor are they given the pay-to-not-play DLC for games like Forza.
Click to expand...

So you're saying they're grossly incompetent and aren't telling/aren't able to tell their readers why the game is such a mess with all of these microtransactions and how it changed things from previous forza games. Not to mention they didn't seem to tell anyone about all of the missing features from past games.

In that case I agree. There's no conspiracy going on here, reviewers are just bad at their jobs for the most part.
 
N

NoirVisage

Banned
Roto13 said:
Oh, GAF. Never stop making shit up about game reviews just to have something to be outraged about.

Game reviewers aren't given weird versions of games that have everything unlocked from the start. The very idea is ridiculous. Nor are they given the pay-to-not-play DLC for games like Forza.
Click to expand...

Way to miss the forest for the trees genius.
 
D

Donos

Member
Hanmik said:
could you give som examples where they have recieved stuff with everything unlocked..?
Click to expand...

Worded it poorly. I wanted to say that IF the future is very dlc/microtransaction/f2p heavy, there will sureley be situations where "top" reviewers/sites will get an advantage with unlocks.Hell, some already get the travel expenses paid and get free consoles. If a big publisher thinks it will get better scores when they unlock all the stuff for a reviewer , you think they don't going to do this?

When that happens, reviews will be with different basic conditions. (sorry, no native english speaker)
 
A

Agent_Tiro

Member
I think one of the bigger issues is the use of an embargo to restrict information on a game. I understand it's there to prevent things that don't need to be revealed as they will be sorted by launch, or spoilers etc. But surely you can't embargo the reviewers for being able to give their opinion on it. The amount of articles I've read, or podcasts listened to where they've been unable to comment on something because of an embargo is ridiculous. Especially if the embargo date is until the last minute (yes I'm talking about you Ryse!)

Anyway onto the journalists themselves. I've noticed that a lot of the reviews for next gen don't actually talk about the game mechanics. I read a few Killzone reviews that make no mention of the OWL for example. There is way too much PR buzz word bingo going on.

As ever I rely upon my own opinion from footage of games, and opinions from friends and people I trust. They are just as valid, if not more than any of those published on websites who are just after clicks.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Derrick01 said:
So you're saying they're grossly incompetent and aren't telling/aren't able to tell their readers why the game is such a mess with all of these microtransactions and how it changed things from previous forza games. Not to mention they didn't seem to tell anyone about all of the missing features from past games.

In that case I agree. There's no conspiracy going on here, reviewers are just bad at their jobs for the most part.
Click to expand...

Yup, I actually gave them the benefit of the doubt in that respect...
 
C

ChosenPredator

Banned
You know what I would think the micro transactions in crimson dragon would be horrid or the game would suck.... But it's one of the most fun and addictive games I've played .. There is micro transactions for crystals but you get more money and crystals per performance rendering micro transaction useless... Anyways it didn't hinder the experience for myself that's a all that matters lol
 
Codeblew

Codeblew

Member
I feel publishers would not be able to get away with as many of their anti-consumer practices if people would simply not pre-order games and wait a week or two after launch to purchase.
 
N

nynt9

Member
SeanR1221 said:
Ahahahaha this is exactly why I hate his reviews.

Pretentious as fuck.
Click to expand...

See his Forza 5/5 review: After he finishes with the preamble of him not being into racing games, he goes into full blown English major mode. Also, he has this to say about the unlock system:

"The perfectly constructed loop of engagement and reward is what's so ingenious and seductive about Forza 5"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw6_-Q3kXtQ

Seductive? really? It's doubly ironic considering the microtransactions. Ingenious, indeed.

"It perfectly delineates the sociology and psychology in contemporary game design"
 
S

Sword Of Doom

Member
Codeblew said:
I feel publishers would not be able to get away with as many of their anti-consumer practices if people would simply not pre-order games and wait a week or two after launch to purchase.
Click to expand...

Yeah preordering games is always funny to me. The game isn't going anywhere. And that extra content isn't really shit.
 
T

TheOMan

Tagged as I see fit
Triggerhappytel said:
I don't really give a shit about the games press any more. The last six or seven months have shown in no uncertain terms that they've more interest in keeping cosy with publishers than actually giving an honest opinion which benefits the consumer. The only sites I put any faith in are Gamecentral, Jim Sterling and sometimes Eurogamer.

GAF gives me all I need on the information and discussion front. I've really grown disinterested in traditional games press over the events of this year and becoming a regular here.
Click to expand...

Which goes to the crux of why a lot of game journalists (but not all) seem to dislike GAF. This forum gets the news first, has "insiders" and scoops gaming sites regularly.
 
J

Jim Sterling

Member
I am already planning this. I'm in the middle of plotting out a style guide for Escapist reviews going forward, and one thing I want is for reviews to make clear if microtransactions are going to be a significant part of the experience. If they're going to be this aggressive about putting them in games, coverage must be aggressive about detailing them.

I frankly wish I'd known about the extent of them while we were covering the XBO launch. Methinks it may be part of why I never *got* a unit before launch. :)
 
N

nynt9

Member
Jim Sterling said:
I am already planning this. I'm in the middle of plotting out a style guide for Escapist reviews going forward, and one thing I want is for reviews to make clear if microtransactions are going to be a significant part of the experience. If they're going to be this aggressive about putting them in games, coverage must be aggressive about detailing them.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for hearing us out on this Jim! This is exactly what needs to happen.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Jim Sterling said:
I am already planning this. I'm in the middle of plotting out a style guide for Escapist reviews going forward, and one thing I want is for reviews to make clear if microtransactions are going to be a significant part of the experience. If they're going to be this aggressive about putting them in games, coverage must be aggressive about detailing them.

I frankly wish I'd known about the extent of them while we were covering the XBO launch. Methinks it may be part of why I never *got* a unit before launch. :)
Click to expand...

Thank Jim! I haven't bookmarked the Escapist since you got there, but I'll remember to do it next time I'm visiting!
 
F

Faustek

Member
Jim Sterling said:
I am already planning this. I'm in the middle of plotting out a style guide for Escapist reviews going forward, and one thing I want is for reviews to make clear if microtransactions are going to be a significant part of the experience. If they're going to be this aggressive about putting them in games, coverage must be aggressive about detailing them.

I frankly wish I'd known about the extent of them while we were covering the XBO launch. Methinks it may be part of why I never *got* a unit before launch. :)
Click to expand...

Jim Jim, you have to learn. Put on that Tutu and clown makeup and start dancing to the big corporate tune and you'll get games in time....actually Don't, be "aggressive" as you are today. tell us if we suck ass, tell us if a game mechanism suck ass and call us out when we're being douchy, call out corporate when they are being douchy and remember you can still don that Tutu if you wish.

I support Tutus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Forbes: Steam reviews are a weapon, but one of the only ones players can wield
35
1K
Bkdk replied
Homeworld 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
22
2K
amigastar replied
South Park: Snow Day | Review Thread
Analysis Review
9
1K
StueyDuck replied
Foamstars | Review Thread
44
3K
havoc00 replied
Sand Land | Review Thread
Opinion Analysis Review
12
1K
bender replied
Top Bottom