Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Bethesda already does that to some degree, with some youtubers/streamers getting the game before media
-
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
- Thread starter Makonero
- Start date
Bethesda already does that to some degree, with some youtubers/streamers getting the game before media
I think no reviews means no hype and that damaged it more but that demo certainly didn't help. One of the worst controlling games I've played in a long long time (PS4 version), everything about it felt horrible.
Aizen.S.Kennedy
Banned
Interesting. I only follow EZA so I had no idea. It will take more publishers following suit for the sites to react though.
ScientificPizza
Banned
Okay? I don't care what words you specifically use, but the difference between great and fantastic is negligible
This isn't being unable to discern distinction, it's that the distinction between those two words is almost nonexistant. You're argument is strange because you are trying to force important meaning on words that *are* interchangeable. They're synonyms of one another but you're placing them on a pedestal saying these should only be used in specific situations
Yes, context is important. But I'm not sure why thinking an 8 can't be fantastic as well.
Doom was being sold on its multiplayer which was shit, they held back reviews to try cover that up.
The single player ended up being good which surprised them, now they are claiming to have known it was good all along and making an example out of doom because they got lucky.
Basically, they would rather take any potential sales hits on good games than take a massive sales hit on bad games. But by cherry picking it you can read between the lines, by having a blanket policy it makes it harder and less predictable
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
You're free to consider whatever number as "fantastic" that you want. I was just pointing out that no professional scale that I've found would agree, which I did originally as a counterpoint to the idea that Kotaku's description was inaccurate, which it wasn't
Sounds even worse than what we have now.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Protecting pre orders for games that theoretically could review poorly (which no Bethesda game has this gen) So they're basically hurting their own games for no reason.
I can tell you what you'll get a lot of: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1143005
Rooster Teeth berating Jeff Gerstmann for a review of Fallout 4 and defend Bethesda and the game while wearing Pip-Boys they got from Bethesda.
Basically this young new crowd will be used and played like old media used to get used and played back in the 80's and 90's.
This is generally where I'm coming from (also expecting the next BethSoft game to launch broken as they do), but why the Prey demo then? That doesn't line up, unless they thought that early section was by far the best part of the game.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
The demo was to show people that the game is good, they weren't worried about Prey reviewing poorly, or Dishonored 2. This is just them being overly protective about their pre-orders. And its back firing.
DieAntwoord
Banned
Stop buying games on release anyway. That's the benefit, if this gets you in such a rut then wait a month or five before you play.
InsaneTiger
Member
What a nightmare. One, it's already happening but these YTs are worse than reviewers in many ways. No one method is perfect.
APZonerunner
Member
One thing I'll say is that reviews aren't really that big of a traffic draw and really the money is made in interesting op-eds, guides, exclusive features etc. Because most of the time review scores get pulled into aggregates or posted in short-form with a score to places like GAF, you actually don't draw a lot of CLICKS out of reviews unless you're lucky enough to be one of the top-three that charts on google when somebody punches in "[game name] review". Anyway, my point is - if you think reviews are making or breaking the revenue of gaming sites, you couldn't be more wrong, basically.
Aside from that... A good wide review spread and a good critic average can, I think, drive word of mouth and kick-start it before launch, however, and Prey probably needed it. Streaming and YouTube is great, but it's also worth pointing out it can't have that immediate 'at a glance' impact on a person's opinion, and so because of that I do think traditional reviews have 'a thing' they can do that streaming etc can't. To get something out of a stream it takes 5 minutes at least, probably more. To get something out of a slew of reviews it takes typing "Prey Reviews" into google and seeing, right at the top of the page, an 80% MC average presented in big bold text (with metacritic proper the first and second result on the proper 'results' page). That takes 30 seconds.
GwyndolinCinder
Member
People thinking that bethesda are doing this to avoid "bad press for bad games", wanna bear in mind that a DOOM 7/10 from ign is bad for that game. Same way as a 9-10 score from IGN can make a game sell much better at a launch. (Nioh, persona this year)
It doesnt have to be a case of "We think the game might be bad, and will review bad", it can simply be a case of "It might review bad". Look at some of the reviews for prey just whining that "Game too hard", jason mentions that stuff like that could be because they had to rush.... thats not much of an argument to trust reviewers.
It doesnt have to be a case of "We think the game might be bad, and will review bad", it can simply be a case of "It might review bad". Look at some of the reviews for prey just whining that "Game too hard", jason mentions that stuff like that could be because they had to rush.... thats not much of an argument to trust reviewers.
dragonflys545
Member
Reviews is what made many of my friends pick up games they never intended to pick up to begin with. Kinda dumb of them to do this.
They already do that. And it's no wonder a lot of the personalities they give copies to just so happen to be huge Bethesda fans.
IISANDERII
Member
Many sites struggle and so are compelled to post reviews ASAP because that's when they'll get the most visitors and therefore revenue. So no, they're not free to take their time and yes, it could easily be a requirement if they want to keep their jobs.
If reviewers had an embargo for Doom that was up a week before launch the game would have garnered a bunch of buzz, because Bethesda themselves were doing a shit job of selling it since everyone thought it was gonna be bad.
It didn't. So they didn't. So that game was carried by its quality after the fact.
The part where they say this way is less optimal for reviewers makes we laugh.
Most reviews are made in hilarious less-than-optimal conditions and almost never speak to the manner in which an average human interacts with anything, which is A) under actual (not self-imposed) time duress B) without access to any third-party external information about the game and C) actively fucking reviewing it for Gen Pop in their minds. Last I checked review copies aren't given 6 months in advance, so very unclear how getting a game after, vs before, is significantly different in terms of time duress (you have a limit, period). If anything, it just goes to show what a crock the whole review process is if you are trying to paint it as a sort of service, and not just a product.
Post-release reviews ARE the better deal for consumers, but it will take time (decades?) for us to catch on. The point is, simple cows that we are, we love to buy shit Day 1. That's not on Bethesda. That's on us. Once our simpleton minds slow down we can allow reviews for games to function like, you know, actual criticism, which comes out WHEN IT WANTS TO, not in time for a PR schedule, not in time to make sure you are the one with the most clicks, and not supplied by the publisher/creator, most importantly. Again, as long as you love Day 1 culture, you will hate post Day 1 reviews. But, if you buy your games months later - who gives a shit - now, actually, you have a leg to stand on if you want to say "Hey we here at Kotaku are going to take a long ass time to review this game properly". But they won't, because they are, as far as I can see, taking the cow path. They are not path pavers. Kotaku, like most, want what is safe. We look at this in the design of any company system day in and day out; *most* pave the cow path. Few pave their own. All companies are like this. Most people are like this. For Kotaku to actually embrace late reviews they need balls. Balls to shit on Day 1 clicks and believe that when their review comes out, people will still read it and base their purchases on it. Right now, they are right to do what they do; most people couldn't give a shit about what Kotaku has to say if it isn't a "strike when the iron's hot" kind of thing. So, can you blame them? Well, yes you can. Because it is Kotaku who created this pace. Them, and the rest of the internet-alike.
Ranty mcrant rant ranter!
And yes, I get "reality". Reviewers have *pressure* to release their shit Day 1. Well, I don't care. You want to change reality, get your hands dirty. Delay that review man. Delay it to hell and back. You want to live in the publisher's pocket? You want to promote pre-orders and Day 1 editions and Day 1 that? Well, keep on keeping on. Simple idea, but, if you don't make Day 1 so special, it will, over time, become less so.
Most reviews are made in hilarious less-than-optimal conditions and almost never speak to the manner in which an average human interacts with anything, which is A) under actual (not self-imposed) time duress B) without access to any third-party external information about the game and C) actively fucking reviewing it for Gen Pop in their minds. Last I checked review copies aren't given 6 months in advance, so very unclear how getting a game after, vs before, is significantly different in terms of time duress (you have a limit, period). If anything, it just goes to show what a crock the whole review process is if you are trying to paint it as a sort of service, and not just a product.
Post-release reviews ARE the better deal for consumers, but it will take time (decades?) for us to catch on. The point is, simple cows that we are, we love to buy shit Day 1. That's not on Bethesda. That's on us. Once our simpleton minds slow down we can allow reviews for games to function like, you know, actual criticism, which comes out WHEN IT WANTS TO, not in time for a PR schedule, not in time to make sure you are the one with the most clicks, and not supplied by the publisher/creator, most importantly. Again, as long as you love Day 1 culture, you will hate post Day 1 reviews. But, if you buy your games months later - who gives a shit - now, actually, you have a leg to stand on if you want to say "Hey we here at Kotaku are going to take a long ass time to review this game properly". But they won't, because they are, as far as I can see, taking the cow path. They are not path pavers. Kotaku, like most, want what is safe. We look at this in the design of any company system day in and day out; *most* pave the cow path. Few pave their own. All companies are like this. Most people are like this. For Kotaku to actually embrace late reviews they need balls. Balls to shit on Day 1 clicks and believe that when their review comes out, people will still read it and base their purchases on it. Right now, they are right to do what they do; most people couldn't give a shit about what Kotaku has to say if it isn't a "strike when the iron's hot" kind of thing. So, can you blame them? Well, yes you can. Because it is Kotaku who created this pace. Them, and the rest of the internet-alike.
Ranty mcrant rant ranter!
And yes, I get "reality". Reviewers have *pressure* to release their shit Day 1. Well, I don't care. You want to change reality, get your hands dirty. Delay that review man. Delay it to hell and back. You want to live in the publisher's pocket? You want to promote pre-orders and Day 1 editions and Day 1 that? Well, keep on keeping on. Simple idea, but, if you don't make Day 1 so special, it will, over time, become less so.
I think the demo might hurt the game more than late reviews. Atleast in GAF it seems that people weren't impressed by it at all. Even though some of them ended up loving the game. Kill demos again!
And stop rushing reviews games media, that hurts the consumer, the devs and yourself.
I love Easy Allies for this, it's not really uncommon that some of their reviews come a bit later than the majority. They aren't rushing and it shows in the quality of the reviews. Thought and care goes into those things.
And stop rushing reviews games media, that hurts the consumer, the devs and yourself.
I love Easy Allies for this, it's not really uncommon that some of their reviews come a bit later than the majority. They aren't rushing and it shows in the quality of the reviews. Thought and care goes into those things.
While I'm no fan of the wily garbage that is preorder culture, what do you mean by the bolded? If reviews are effectively a buyers guide (which launch reviews are) why would this be the case? It really isn't in any other form of media, to the point that the lack of pre-release reviews is a clear death knell for some things. Can you clarify?
7DollarHagane
Banned
Yeah, I think its hard for them to get that review to release hype without reviews hitting altogether.
I wouldn't be surprised if by this time next year the policy has been changed or reversed.
I wouldn't be surprised if by this time next year the policy has been changed or reversed.
Paul_Str337
Member
I like to keep up to date with my gaming news but I didn't even know Prey was out until yesterday. I keep track of a few sites I think share a similar opinion to mine or from viewpoints I trust and pay a keen interest in reviews so I know if I want a thing when it comes out. Prey hasn't even registered on my radar yet and has been drowned out by the sea of fantastic games I am interested in. In this respect their review policy has completely back-fired. I'm unlikely to put down money early for a game I'm unsure about the quality of before release. I've no chance of putting money down on a game I scarcely know exists.
Still, they are implying that no review copies lead to rushed and flawed reviews. And though I agree they will and understand the reasons why this occurs, do not reviewers own some of that responsibility for putting out reviews as such?
I don't give regular press a break when reporting on breaking news, don't see why I should give the gaming press one either.
MDSVeritas said:
I was responding to the line in the article so I missed they didn't do one. Like I said though, I agree it leads to rushed reviews, but I just think the observation by Kotaku skips over the responsibilities of the review writer.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
Bethesda review copies policy is surely nit an argument to trust Bethesda games.
That's...not remotely the same.
And it will only take a few bad actors rushing through the game and shitting out a garbage review to get one up ASAP and thus get the eyes that being first gives (not necessarily saying that happened this time) for it to be turned into a big "See, look how dumb the gaming press is!" like any number of things have in the past.
Lead time and embargoes lessen that risk.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
This is what I don't get. Their policy would have benefited every single release they've put out (except Dishonored 2 on PC which is performance-related).
People were shocked when DOOM turned out to be good. Why put doubt in people's minds if you want them to pre-order?
People were shocked when DOOM turned out to be good. Why put doubt in people's minds if you want them to pre-order?
I'm curious to what the actual hard data says about Beth's policy
Does the positive buzz from good critical reception make for better game sales? And if so, by how much of a degree? Is the damage done by negative critical reception really so bad that it justifies not sending out early copies of anything? Even something that could probably use a bit of extra hype since nobody really knows what it is or cares about it, like Prey?
They still send out early copies to Youtubers and the like, yeah? Maybe they figure LPs of early portions of the game do just as good/better than full blown reviews.
Does the positive buzz from good critical reception make for better game sales? And if so, by how much of a degree? Is the damage done by negative critical reception really so bad that it justifies not sending out early copies of anything? Even something that could probably use a bit of extra hype since nobody really knows what it is or cares about it, like Prey?
They still send out early copies to Youtubers and the like, yeah? Maybe they figure LPs of early portions of the game do just as good/better than full blown reviews.
The Greek Freak
Member
I find it hilarious that Bethesda did this when even trash fires like FO4 get glowing reviews.
Hell even a piece of trash like ME:A got mostly positive reviews.
It's really fucking hard to get bad reviews.
Hell even a piece of trash like ME:A got mostly positive reviews.
It's really fucking hard to get bad reviews.
ScientificPizza
Banned
It's almost as if opinions and subjective and not everyone views those games as trash
I know I definitely don't
We might be mis-attributing cause and effect.
Prey's recent performance could be due to other things like marketing, timing, lack of IP awareness etc.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
The thing is, they aren't making bad games. All of their games are getting good reviews, they're hurting their games for no reason.
This makes more sense for publishers like EA/Activision/Ubisoft who will rush games out to hit their quarterly reports, it doesnt make sense for smaller publishers like Bethesda.
How disgusting! A game getting by on its merits! There should be an enquiry.
Yeah, cuz I'm saying word of mouth is a bad thing. *eyeroll*
What I am saying is how lucky Bethesda was that id could still produce a game this good, despite Bethesda fucking up everything else around its release.
Petrae
Member
It's already happening more and more, as Twitch and YouTube are fast becoming the go-to for gaming-related content. It's beneficial for publishers (who get cheap hype) and for the selected video content creators (who get games and a traffic infusion by having early access to notable games ahead of traditional gaming press).
The downside is that consumers will have to wait for traditional gaming press to get their copies, power through the games, and quickly get reviews up that may be a bit more critical. By then, hype may have already led consumers to pick up their preorders or buy on launch day-- but this happens already, even with the current review process.
What you're saying is that Bethesda putting a game in the position whereby it could be made or broken by the word of mouth of players is a bad thing. I do not agree.
The article is very illogical, and as so, really screams bad quality for Kotaku and this writer. He is implying the embargo is causing lower reviews based on no link. What if no embargo caused lower review ratings? The article just makes no connection and is writing this argument based on thin air. The writer must be under pressure for clicks.
WordsintheWater
Member
The game is great too, the demo is doing more harm then good. I played the demo and came out iffy about it, but I took a chance with the full game cause I loved the aesthetic, looks like I was rewarded with varied gameplay that I did not expect.
No, I'm saying that an incredibly enthusiastic games press before release would have led to more sales at full price at launch. I don't begrudge anyone getting it for cheaper later either by will or by ignorance as to the game's greatness, but wouldn't selling it at launch be objectively better for Bethesda?
ie. "DOOM Shows That Bethesda's Review Policy Is Even Bad For Bethesda"
Again, I'm not saying good and bad word of mouth by players is a bad thing. Come on.
Bruno
Member
I played the demo on my PS4 Pro and wanted nothing to do with the game. The game was then gifted to me on PC and I've been really enjoying it. Demo DEFINITELY left a terrible impression for me.