• 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.

Kotaku: Prey Shows That Bethesda's Review Policy Is Even Bad For Bethesda

Makonero

Member
For the past year, much to the dismay of critics everywhere, Bethesda’s marketing team has refused to send out early codes for their games. For Doom, Dishonored 2, and now Prey, Bethesda has provided review copies less than 24 hours in advance, giving reviewers little time to play through those games before they launched. In a blog post last year about this decision, Bethesda offered a laughable justification, writing that: “While we will continue to work with media, streamers, and YouTubers to support their coverage—both before and after release—we want everyone, including those in the media, to experience our games at the same time.”

This strange, disdainful decision was slammed by critics when Bethesda announced it last fall, but the publisher has maintained its policy nonetheless. This makes Bethesda an anomaly. Traditionally, game publishers will send out review copies to press one to two weeks in advance, often with a “review embargo” of a specific time and date on which critics can post their thoughts. This allows everyone to stay on the same page. A critic at IGN doesn’t have to worry about being scooped by a critic at GameSnacksWeekly because they’ve both agreed to the same embargo. The timeframe may be tight, depending when review copies hit, but nobody has to rush to be first on the web.

Yesterday, for example, we received a copy of Fire Emblem Echoes from Nintendo, giving us a solid 11 days to play through the game before it comes out, on May 19. Atlus, god bless them, sent us codes for Persona 5 nearly two months before it launched. Although publishers like Activision haven’t typically offered early reviewer access to online-only games like Destiny, and once in a while a publisher will send out codes late, those are the extraordinary cases. Most publishers are happy to give out early codes for their single-player games, with rare exceptions (like 2K Games).

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. (From what I’ve heard anecdotally, most publishers’ Metacritic bonuses require games to hit an 85 or 90. I don’t know if Prey has any such bonus.) This Metascore is based entirely on the thoughts of critics who have had the game for four or five days.

Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? Arkane Austin started developing Prey in May 2013, nearly four years ago. Reviewers have offered thoughts and scores, contributing to the big number that will hang on Arkane for the rest of the studio’s existence, after playing the game for less than a week. Those reviewers cranked through the game under sub-optimal conditions, rushing to beat the clock (and the competition) despite the fact that most Prey players will have far different experiences.

Bethesda’s failure to give reviewers that same opportunity does a disservice not just to customers who won’t get timely reviews from their favorite critics, but to the developers at Arkane, who spent four years on this game only to watch reviewers stamp numbers on it after just four days. There’s no way to know whether Prey reviewers would have felt differently if they weren’t rushing, but regardless, Bethesda’s policy is a bummer for everyone—even Bethesda.

Please read the full thing here.

A really interesting discussion about how Bethesda's policy might just cost them their metacritic score as well as make it so reviewers barely have any time to play their games before shoving out a review. Press Sneak Fuck strikes again.
 

Sn4ke_911

If I ever post something in Japanese which I don't understand, please BAN me.
Jason is like: Where is muh free copy??
1.0


Nah jk i completely agree, their review policy is horseshit and in the end it doesn't help anyone.
 
Prey really does seem like a good game too. It needed the exposure that comes from reviews, especially given the lackluster reaction to the PS4 demo.
 

Calm Mind

Member
Yes...
It's their review policies that are hurting Bethesda and not the homogeneous release schedule they've adopted this generation.

FAKE EDIT: The consumer is exhausted.
 
Yup. Game with little marketing, lots of reviewers are actually really keen on it, but a lot of gaffers (ie the core audience for this type of game) were barely aware it was even out. Really shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
I mean it almost screwed over DOOM as well, word of mouth and branding saved that game but don't know how much that will apply to Prey
 
I've been listening to the fine folks at Waypoint talk about the game over their last few podcasts and it basically sold me on it. As far as I know none of them have published a review and have been taking their time playing through it and really digging in. Marks against Bethesda for a dumb review policy and also marks against major websites making their reviewers slam through the game ASAP just to get a dumb score out there.
 
There’s no way to know whether Prey reviewers would have felt differently if they weren’t rushing, but regardless, Bethesda’s policy is a bummer for everyone—even Bethesda.

There's no way of knowing, but it definitely happened regardless. Strong thesis there.

I'm not really defending Bethesda's position here, but reviewers are free to simply not rush if they don't want to. Their reviews don't have to hit immediately, I know everyone wants to be as close to the hype as possible, but it's not a requirement.
 

Unison

Member
Do the games have Day-One editions or pre-order bonuses?

If not, I don't see any harm in waiting to buy if you're a consumer.

If they do, this is a bad policy, but no worse than day and date reviews, really...

Review embargoes that end before the game is released are the most consumer-friendly policy, obviously... The difference between a day and date review embargo and not sending review copies to reviewers is fairly negligible to me as a consumer, though.
 

Phediuk

Member
Between this, Dishonored 2, and Deux Ex: MD all flopping, we aren't getting another game like this for awhile.

Maybe in a decade someone will try again.

fuck.
 
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.
 

bigjig

Member
It's one of the more boneheaded business decisions a publisher has made. Not handing out review copies not only cuts off review articles and videos, but all other supplementary discussion articles and videos on the game. The net result is silence when your game releases, before a trickle of media comes out days and weeks later, but never in one concentrated mass.

If your game comes out and gets bad reviews at the very least people are talking about your game. With this you even have hardcore gamers such as myself not even release the game is out until days later.
 
They're absolutely right. Bethesda's policy benefits no one but themselves (And ironically, it doesn't even work for them every time) and actively delays information from consumers.
 
I've been listening to the fine folks at Waypoint talk about the game over their last few podcasts and it basically sold me on it. As far as I know none of them have published a review and have been taking their time playing through it and really digging in. Marks against Bethesda for a dumb review policy and also marks against major websites making their reviewers slam through the game ASAP just to get a dumb score out there.

Waypoint doesn't review games anyway.
 

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
What if GameSnacksWeekly is secretly awesome? ;D
 

hamchan

Member
Good. They shouldn't get the benefits of withholding review copies because of their cowardice their games might be bad, without the drawback of reduced notability if their games actually turn out good.
 
If your game is part of a popular franchise and has a heavy marketing campaign withholding reviews shouldn't matter much.
Bethesda didn't market Prey and it's not really a franchise people care about (especially since it's not really Prey 2).
There are a lot of games that have these really soft launches since there's no reviews marking that it's out. It's weird.
I don't think Bethesda will change their stance due to this game. If they had more confidence they would've pushed it more and I imagine they feel the benefit of people not cancelling pre-orders for their actually big releases outweighs something like this falling under the way side
 

Curufinwe

Member
It does seem like a particularly silly policy for games like Prey and Doom that would benefit in the market from a week or two of good review buzz before release.

Doom was down to $20 within a couple of months, and Prey will likely get there just as fast.
 

JoeBoy101

Member
It would benefit Bethesda and their games to go ahead and do review copies again. While you avoid bad press, you lose good press that can boost sales. Prey seems like it will be a very timely example of that.

All that said though, this line:

Those reviewers cranked through the game under sub-optimal conditions, rushing to beat the clock (and the competition) despite the fact that most Prey players will have far different experiences.

Thanks for letting us know the review was half-assed. I understand the reasoning behind cranking as hard a possible, but much like the lack of review copies is to benefit Bethesda, this cranking of the review only benefits Kotaku.
 

KHlover

Banned
Between this, Dishonored 2, and Deux Ex: MD all flopping, we aren't getting another game like this for awhile.

Maybe in a decade someone will try again.

fuck.

It's the second version of Prey 2 that has fuck all to do with Prey 1 and it's not like Prey 1 set the world on fire in the first place. The review policy didn't help, but Prey 2 would have flopped regardless.
 

Unison

Member
If your game is part of a popular franchise and has a heavy marketing campaign withholding reviews shouldn't matter much.
Bethesda didn't market Prey and it's not really a franchise people care about (especially since it's not really Prey 2).
There are a lot of games that have these really soft launches since there's no reviews marking that it's out. It's weird

I agree... there are some valid reasons to withhold early review copies (e.g. MMOs, waiting for multiplayer communities to be active, day one patches, not wanting plot spoilers to leak).

The marketing failure of Prey can't be simply laid at the hands of this policy.

I think the biggest issue is that the game's genre is out of step with its IP.
 

Unison

Member
Doom was down to $20 within a couple of months, and Prey will likely get there just as fast.

I don't know about its sales, but Doom got a lot of GOTY love despite being an early-year release, so it's hard to argue that this policy really hurt the game critically.
 

Kinyou

Member
It's odd that they didn't just give them the game a week early and set the embargo on the release date.

A rushed review is in no one's interest
 

Eusis

Member
Hopefully word of mouth does save Prey, but yeah it's definitely a shitty stance to take as even with the most cynical view (sucker people in before reviews wreck it) most just get cautious and wait if money is an object to them.

I think pre order discounts and bonuses can exacerbate the problem too; why bother getting the game full price at launch when I'm getting "less" than those who took a chance? Maybe if Bethesda wants to keep this policy they have more reason to go with SE's (also kind of stupid) Day One edition crap.
 
I think I've said this before but couldn't this practice incentivize reviewers to give a lower score than if they had received the copy earlier like normal? Whether out of spite or whatever else, I don't see it helping their scores.
 

Sn4ke_911

If I ever post something in Japanese which I don't understand, please BAN me.
You deserve it Bethesda. I just hope the folks at Arkane Austin don't get hurt by this.

The ones who get hurt are always the developers.

That's why this pisses me off, Arkane does not deserve such treatment, neither did Human Head Studios.

#FuckBethesda
 

Kusagari

Member
It does seem like a particularly silly policy for games like Prey and Doom that would benefit in the market from a week or two of good review buzz before release.

Doom was down to $20 within a couple of months, and Prey will likely get there just as fast.

Every game not published by Nintendo is down to $20 within a couple of months at this point. Even bajillion sellers like CoD and BF.
 

Orca

Member
You'd think anyone releasing a game that lets people play with a variety of approaches and creativity would give reviewers ample time to play it and discover the intricacies it offers, instead of a last minute code dump ensuring they'll have to marathon it so their review will be seen by anyone.
 
Thanks for letting us know the review was half-assed. I understand the reasoning behind cranking as hard a possible, but much like the lack of review copies is to benefit Bethesda, this cranking of the review only benefits Kotaku.
Kotaku hasn't reviewed Prey yet, only put out an early impressions article and tips
http://kotaku.com/three-hours-with-prey-1794964866
http://kotaku.com/both-zelda-and-prey-make-climbing-and-falling-fun-1795025994
http://kotaku.com/tips-for-playing-prey-1795062740
 

jacobeid

Banned
I mean, what they're doing now isn't working but I don't have any better suggestions if Bethesda doesn't want to send out games "early."
 

Unison

Member
I think I've said this before but couldn't this practice incentivize reviewers to give a lower score than if they had received the copy earlier like normal? Whether out of spite or whatever else, I don't see it helping their scores.

Yes, it could, and we certainly have seen evidence of reviewers being straight out vindictive, but it's best to ignore those reviewers.
 
Jason might be right but the big outlets like Kotaku could benefit by not always framing these arguments as "X will be good for the consumer!" or in this case "X is bad for the industry!" when really what they mean is "X will generate more clicks and revenue for us."

Sure, all those things can align, but in the end it's the later that's the thing Kotaku really cares about, and it comes off as disingenuous when they don't cop to that.
 

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Top Bottom