Support NeoGAF

[rochellepaws]

Bethesda are definitely on to something with this and have probably seen the sort of success on PC from games like DayZ or PlayerUnknown mainly due to word of mouth, twitch streamers and youtube content creators rather than coverage from traditional media. But I think they need a much stronger marketing presence before launch to compensate for the lack of media presence or we'll have situations like with Prey where nobody seems to know that it's already released. Will be very interesting to see if they're successful with it long term, I certainly don't think the idea is insanity or without merit though.

 

[Instro]

There is the benefit of the games bombing and the games drop in price incredibly fast like Doom and Dishonoured 2 has so far.

I hope they keep doing it, I'm not gonna complain about cheap games so soon after release lol.

Bethesda games, and many games these days, drop in price rapidly. Doom was certainly no bomb.

 

[Fliesen]

The lack of marketing is the problem here, I don't think reviews have any relevance to the general public.

good reviews are free marketing.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Incredible.

If 8/10 isn't fantastic to you, then you're part of the problem.

First, what problem? Second, I'm part of this imaginary problem because I use words as they should be intended?

A 9/10.

Which means it's probably worth checking out.

Nice way of dodging the question.

If 8/10 is fantastic, what's 7/10? That's generally considered good, but that's far too big of step down for the 1 point gap

Edit: IGN on their official scale considers an 8 to be "Great." 7 is "Good"

 

[pizzacat]

Game seems like a snooze anyway I only play 10/10s lul

 

[Kthulhu]

???

The majority of the copies of Prey that will be sold, have been sold. Reviews probably won't change that at this point.

Like movies, launch week for games is the most important time for them, as that is when most people will buy it.

 

[Interficium]

Why can't they be concerned for the industry or consumers too? Writers are consumers and game enthusiasts same as you and me. What evidence makes you think they're not being straight?

They can be both, absolutely. They choose to pretend there's no financial incentive for them, though.

 

[mdubs]

Because it takes a long time to print all those Blu-rays. Just cuz the game is done doesn't mean it's ready to be on store shelves.

Edit: also the game was delayed for localization purposes.

Kotaku probably would've gotten a review code in January if the game hadn't been delayed.

That doesn't add up - plenty of games go gold less than a month before release (https://news.xbox.com/2016/09/19/gears-4-goes-gold/). Also - if it was for localization purposes, did they send critics review copies before the changes were made? If not, there is no reason for a two-month delay when the game was done and potentially could launch a few weeks afterward (the beginning of March perhaps).

 

[Chris1]

Bethesda games, and many games these days, drop in price rapidly. Doom was certainly no bomb.

Doom was widely available for around $20 within around 6 months, if the game was a success it wouldn't have dropped in price that bad so quickly.

Yes all games drop in price fast these days, but doom dropped incredibly fast for a game 90+ rated. The game might have had decent legs, but with how fast it dropped in price I doubt Bethesda is happy about that.

 

[Wulfram]

The speculation that they'd have got higher scores seems, well, speculative, and it would take fairly hefty boost for me to think that seeing those scores would have boosted sales a significant amount.

 

[lenovox1]

I don't know how Doom did sales wise but my friends knew it existed when it released. (Can't remember if their review policy kick in before or after Doom as well)

Edit: yup Doom was sent review copies like prey.

Prey just came out of thin air to them. I didn't even hear about until the review thread pop up. I figured it was still development.

Of course. Doom has brand recognition. You can send review copies day of for properties with brand recognition and not have it negatively impact sales with the proper marketing strategy in place.

Prey doesn't get that advantage, as you mention. The best PR firms and departments work hand and hand with the press to provide exposure to their hot new thing.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

I know it's not a popular opinion around these parts, but this just sounds like someone's that bitter that couldn't have a review for people to click on, on Day 1.

Are people calling DOOM a flop? What stats are you using to back up that sort of claim?

 

[franklyshankly]

First, what problem? Second, I'm part of this imaginary problem because I use words as they should be intended?



Nice way of dodging the question.

If 8/10 is fantastic, what's 7/10? That's generally considered good, but that's far too big of step down for the 1 point gap

Edit: IGN on their official scale considers an 8 to be "Great." 7 is "Good"

I'd agree with the IGN numbers

7=Good
8=Great
9=Fantastic
9.5+=Incredble

So Prey at an 8 is sitting at "great" which is, well... great. I'm not sure how that can be spun as poor in any way.

 

[Unison]

Bethesda are definitely on to something with this and have probably seen the sort of success on PC from games like DayZ or PlayerUnknown mainly due to word of mouth, twitch streamers and youtube content creators rather than coverage from traditional media. But I think they need a much stronger marketing presence before launch to compensate for the lack of media presence or we'll have situations like with Prey where nobody seems to know that it's already released. Will be very interesting to see if they're successful with it long term, I certainly don't think the idea is insanity or without merit though.

I agree that most casual/mainstream gamers these days pay more attention to streamers, social media, TV ads and word of mouth than blog and game website reviews.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I'm doubtful you can draw a direct line between the review policy and the lackluster marketing for Bethesda's recent titles. That being said, it's pretty unquestionably anti-consumer and I kinda struggle to support it.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I'd agree with the IGN numbers

7=Good
8=Great
9=Fantastic
9.5+=Incredble

So Prey at an 8 is sitting at "great" which is, well... great. I'm not sure how that can be spun as poor in any way.

I think most people would agree, except for the contrarians in this thread who have a very liberal definition for "fantastic"

 

[maxiell]

It seems like a lot of major outlets have yet to submit review scores. Given Metacritic's weighting and the type of game being reviewed, the overall effect is most likely to bring down the average, which is just another way this policy hurts the game.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

I guess reviews are serious business.

 

[Broken Joystick]

Nice way of dodging the question.

If 8/10 is fantastic, what's 7/10? That's generally considered good, but that's far too big of step down for the 1 point gap

Edit: IGN on their official scale considers an 8 to be "Great." 7 is "Good"

Wasn't dodging the question, I just think assigning singular words to numbers is really dumb and restrictive.

If a game's getting scores of 7 and above, to me it means it's worth checking out.

I'd agree with the IGN numbers

7=Good
8=Great
9=Fantastic
9.5+=Incredble

So Prey at an 8 is sitting at "great" which is, well... great. I'm not sure how that can be spun as poor in any way.

Genuinely curious, what's a 6 and a 5 mean to you?

 

[ForkNetwork]

Boy is Prey going to go into the history books for the worst possible reasons. It makes me sad for Arkane, hopefully heads wont roll or they wont be forced to make a single player game. I may not like Dishonored but we need as many single player developers as possible.

 

[Joeku]

Bethesda are definitely on to something with this and have probably seen the sort of success on PC from games like DayZ or PlayerUnknown mainly due to word of mouth, twitch streamers and youtube content creators rather than coverage from traditional media. But I think they need a much stronger marketing presence before launch to compensate for the lack of media presence or we'll have situations like with Prey where nobody seems to know that it's already released. Will be very interesting to see if they're successful with it long term, I certainly don't think the idea is insanity or without merit though.

If Bethesda games were more like Early Access games just throwing it out there would at least make some sense. But none of them since the policy have been. Only Doom even had multiplayer of any kind, and nobody even gave enough of a shit about it for it's badness to taint the review scores too much.

The policy sounds like a blanket lack of expectation that the games will review well and/or that those reviews with an embargo time will increase buzz. Given that everything they've put out since then has been on a scale from "pretty good" to "goddamn amazing", I don't see what they stand to gain.

If the next BethSoft game (Elder Scrolls or Fallout or new IP) is another pretty broken launch on that same engine, I can at least get the cynicism of no early reviews there. For everything else, though...*shrug*

 

[Mooreberg]

I know it's not a popular opinion around these parts, but this just sounds like someone's that bitter that couldn't have a review for people to click on, on Day 1.

Are people calling DOOM a flop? What stats are you using to back up that sort of claim?

That is part of it. But there is also the argument to be made that not having a review up on day one for a large network like IGN is forfeiting free attention. But the ultimate counter argument is that Ghost Recon was the best selling game of the first quarter, meaning reviews are basically worthless shit to most consumers anyway.

 

[franklyshankly]

I think most people would, except for the contrarians in this thread who have a very liberal definition for "fantastic"

It should also be pointed out that only the ps4 version of Prey is at 80 MC. PC is at 83 and XB1 is at 88 right now. So all in all, Prey is doing pretty well in the review department.

 

[soundtrack]

I'd agree with the IGN numbers

7=Good
8=Great
9=Fantastic
9.5+=Incredble

So Prey at an 8 is sitting at "great" which is, well... great. I'm not sure how that can be spun as poor in any way.

I think IGN's scale is correct; it's just that other review sites have inflated the scoring system so much that an 8 in the grand scheme of things is somehow less than acceptable. I mean, the industry has jobs that depend on whether or not a game gets 85+ on Metacritic, which is absurd.

 

[Revolutionary]

The lack of marketing is the problem here, I don't think reviews have any relevance to the general public.

Yep.
Due to the lack of marketing and info about the game, I had virtually zero interest until the demo was released, and even then the PS4 demo wasn't the best representation of the game.

A lot of things went wrong with the lead up to Prey's release - reviews have little if nothing to do with it. Like the first post said, it's no surprise that this is Kotaku's stance on the whole situation.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

I mean, yeah, of course that's going to be Kotaku's take.

Well, they're not wrong.

 

[Mattenth]

As of May 9, Prey has an 80 on Metacritic. Although that number may jump up and down a bit before it settles, it is not considered fantastic.

Sure, it's not considered fantastic, but it really should be. 75%+ of the scores are 8 or higher. "Prey is ranked in the top 13.7% of games scored on OpenCritic"

I won't play it (not my thing) and agree that Bethesda's policy is anticonsumer (it denies cost-sensitive gamers the chance to participate in the first wave).

But I also think it's a little weird to say 82 is anything other than really good.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Wasn't dodging the question, I just think assigning singular words to numbers is really dumb and restrictive.

If a game's getting scores of 7 and above, to me it means it's worth checking out.

Waaaait, but you were the one arguing an 80 was fantastic originally! Why is it only now dumb to assign a word if you were arguing it before?

"Worth checking out" is very different from saying the scores were fantastic. There are lots of "Good" games worth checking out, as there are "great," and "fantastic" ones--along with whatever other word you care to prescribe to a favorable experience

 

[Takat]

Reviewers do shape people's mind, and people are different. Like many things, gaming is subjective, some can love one game and others hate it.

I understand Bethesda reasoning behind it. I do think Steam's return policy is there to help people decide if they want to experience more or not. I hope more companies like Sony and Nintendo will adopt it.

 

[The Dear Leader]

It's waaay too early to say that

Considering it's the what 3rd or 4th game they've done it with, I would say they seem fine with it.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

It maybe could have helped since it doesn't seem like Bethesda was marketing it at all but thats about it. It just kinda came out with zero push.


In general though you have to be pretty up your own arse to think timely day 1 reviews matter for success. If the game had any kind of decent release window marketing I think things would be different.

It helps when the embargo lifts and all outlets unanimously feature a game on their "front" pages. It helps create buzz.

A healthy relationship with all media outlets is important. From streamers to more traditional outlets.

 

[Anticol]

I mean, yeah, of course that's going to be Kotaku's take.

Are you really gonna defend bethesda's position here?

 

[Broken Joystick]

Waaaait, but you were the pone arguing an 80 was fantastic!

"Worth checking out" is very different from saying the scores were fantastic

I quoted the word fantastic!

 

[polyh3dron]

I mean, yeah, of course that's going to be Kotaku's take.

This is a bad post.

You should actually read the piece, and be just a little less cynical.

 

[franklyshankly]

Wasn't dodging the question, I just think assigning singular words to numbers is really dumb and restrictive.

If a game's getting scores of 7 and above, to me it means it's worth checking out.



Genuinely curious, what's a 6 and a 5 mean to you?

6 = average
5 or below = poor

7, equating to "good" certainly means, as you stated, that it's worth checking out. Unless you define good completely differently than me, good is the opposite of bad.

 

[Joeku]

They can be both, absolutely. They choose to pretend there's no financial incentive for them, though.

Wouldn't the stronger financial incentive to be for they themselves to rush out a shitty review to be first instead of posting one on an agreed-upon embargo time that's shared among all outlets at once?

 

[Joyful]

offer bonus for good metacritic score
wait till last minute to give out review copies
dont have to pay bonus because lower scores from rushed reviews

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Considering it's the what 3rd or 4th game they've done it with, I would say they seem fine with it.

Because it worked before. This time, it may not have, hence why it's too early to determine how they feel about it

I quoted the word fantastic!

So, you didn't mean it then? Why quote it?

 

[mdubs]

The lack of marketing is the problem here, I don't think reviews have any relevance to the general public.

The reviews, if positive, are a form of publicity though. Embargo day is potentially a free bit of hype for the game if it is good, so it's odd that they would choose to cut that off especially in the case of games like Doom and Prey which reviewed/are reviewing pretty well

 

[Harmen]

Bethesda are definitely on to something with this and have probably seen the sort of success on PC from games like DayZ or PlayerUnknown mainly due to word of mouth, twitch streamers and youtube content creators rather than coverage from traditional media. But I think they need a much stronger marketing presence before launch to compensate for the lack of media presence or we'll have situations like with Prey where nobody seems to know that it's already released. Will be very interesting to see if they're successful with it long term, I certainly don't think the idea is insanity or without merit though.

I don't think this will work for story/singleplayer AA/AAA titles that are from an unknown ip. Maybe for cheaper indie titles, which don't require big sales numbers in order to be profitable, but games such as Prey need all the exposure they can get. Games that have long term online communities and support are a different story, those can grow over time and also thrive on selling additional content/microtransactions.

 

[Ninhead]

Way to go, you bunch of press sneak fucks.

 

[filly]

I mean critics ie game news outlets are inherinately going to not like this because they also review games... so I'm sure there is an effect on the score.

However a metacrtic score is not a be all end all. To stay on the lips of podcasters and media outlets, having a simulatnious conversation while the public is playing it has it benefits. I have got 3 hours into prey and am having a good time. Doom and dishonered 2 has garnered some good will with me and as I buy physicals, if I don't like it all I have to do is pop it on eBay.

But if it's good, then I feel like the media is experiencing it with me, it's kind of more magical. It was so nice to discover why doom was such a good game and have everyone be surprised too. It wasn't on anyone's radar, but interest grew and grew. And it must be kind of working otherwise they would of stopped this practice.

I get why reviewers are upset, but they are trying something different and i kinda respect it.

 

[GinoFelino]

OH YEAH WELL KOTAKU IS OBVIOUSLY BIASED




towards common sense

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Lack of visibility caused this, of which early review copies are only a symptom of an overall problem to communicate.

 

[Timeaisis]

Here's the thing, though.

1) If we're speculating that Prey would review better if copies were sent out earlier, then we're basically admitting that a large portion of reviewers are rushing through the game to get a review out. Which is a completely separate and (in my opinion, more concerning) problem. It almost seems like someone at Bethesda is taking a principled approach here, to their own detriment.
2) If Prey would have reviewed exactly the same way if they gave early copies beforehand, I posit it wouldn't help Bethesda at all in that the game sits at an 80 on MC.

The one caveat here is if coming reviews are going to be glowing, and the MC gets boosted, early sales will have suffered needlessly and they might have lost their window for those customers on the fence.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Such poor review policy only shows that the publisher and or developer is scared of ratings that might drive off potential buyers.
And in my opinion this fear is only relevant if they want to grab cash easily.
If the game's good, the publisher should have the point of view that it'll receive good ratings anytime and should release review copies early enough.
No matter what, if the game's good or bad this behaviour of giving review copies out late, will always have a bad taste in my eyes.


Even more weird that a company like Bethesda with great games like Doom does this..

 

[wolgoen]

Their policy on review copies is crazy just like another game industry phenomenon...preordering.

Interesting how they are both linked too.

 

[ViviOggi]

I mean, yeah, of course that's going to be Kotaku's take.

Embarassing first post

 

[Nanashrew]

The lack of marketing is the problem here, I don't think reviews have any relevance to the general public.

Accolades trailers and commercials. General public will pay attention to high praise even if they don't read the reviews.

And heck, BotW is reaching some new players because of the high scoring reviews and the breaking of conventions for the series. It's interesting, new and overall among the highest rated titles ever. That's going to be eye catching.

 

[Broken Joystick]

6 = average
5 or below = poor

7, equating to "good" certainly means, as you stated, that it's worth checking out. Unless you define good completely differently than me, good is the opposite of bad.

See, to me, I'd probably consider 5 to be "average" in my mind, since it's, well, the average between 1 and 10. And then I'd work my way up from there.

So, you didn't mean it then? Why quote it?

I quoted it because it's the word used in the article. I'm still baffled as to how an 8/10 isn't considered fantastic.