And I'm saying if Bethesda are, for better or worse, willing to forego the usual co-opting of the enthusiastic game press as a marketing arm and let players set the narrative for their games then more power to them.
-
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
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Read some of the reviews. It definitely seems like some of them rushed it. Kotaku's take is exactly as it should be. Bethesda's review policies are stupid.
If that is what you're saying that's fine. You also said that I claimed that was, in and of itself, bad. I didn't.
Here's a thought, critics should never get anything early. They always rush to beat everything ahead of the release date, and it's not good for anyone. Buying on day one should always be a risk, and people who don't want to take that risk should wait for thorough, accurate reviews, not the hyped up garbage we have now.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
This is the opposite of what jason is saying. They usually can take thier time, now with bethesda theyre rushing.
this article doesn't sit well with me. I mean i get it, but spinning an 80% as bad is a bit much. i get that bonus incentives are based of 85% and higher, but it's still not a bad score by any means.
All this points to me is how much of a "Right now" culture we've turned into. I feel like it's a disservice to the readers to give a review experiencing the game for less than one full day. I don't believe there's anything wrong with initial impressions on day one, with a follow up at week's end. That way you'd give an honest opinion of what you really got to truly experience and not rush through on the day of release. I do get that this is a business and traffic is important, but i feel integrity has to be taken into account as well. If i were really into reviews, i'd be tempted to personally black list any site that tried to pass off their one day of playtime as a "review".
All this points to me is how much of a "Right now" culture we've turned into. I feel like it's a disservice to the readers to give a review experiencing the game for less than one full day. I don't believe there's anything wrong with initial impressions on day one, with a follow up at week's end. That way you'd give an honest opinion of what you really got to truly experience and not rush through on the day of release. I do get that this is a business and traffic is important, but i feel integrity has to be taken into account as well. If i were really into reviews, i'd be tempted to personally black list any site that tried to pass off their one day of playtime as a "review".
James Scott
Banned
You'll still have publications rushing to review games...actually, even more so.
I'm not a fan of the policy, but it's also not bethesdas job to police review sites and make sure they do their job properly.
If a site is obviously rushing their reviews and doing a bad job, we should ignore that site. Reward the people doing things right. Be understanding that it's the publishers fault the review isn't ready at launch. Don't take it out on the website for a delay.
And oh yeah, stop preordering games. Particularly from publishers that do this. Take some personal responsibility and exercise self control.
If a site is obviously rushing their reviews and doing a bad job, we should ignore that site. Reward the people doing things right. Be understanding that it's the publishers fault the review isn't ready at launch. Don't take it out on the website for a delay.
And oh yeah, stop preordering games. Particularly from publishers that do this. Take some personal responsibility and exercise self control.
Kite
Member
.. So what is the difference? Game reviewers rush to get their review out before the release date and before their competitors, and now they're rushing their reviews out before their competitors. At least now I know their impressions are being skewed by early access. I mean, did yall take the first reviews out seriously anyways? I never did, they're either rushed or had early access and I usually wait for a price drop or two before getting games anyways so I'll gladly wait for the youtuber reviewers who I trust to take their time and don't try to review every damn release.
This is why their policy sucks. They could rectify all of this, but instead their lack of confidence in their releases and fear of bad press puts the burden on literally everyone else to get wiser. And everyone won't. I stopped preordering games altogether a while ago. Other people have less self control.
Sounds like you want a blood bath when there doesn't need to be one.
Interficium
Banned
It's particularly amusing to me that Kotaku is vehemently against day one hype preorder culture at the same time they lambaste the industry for not encouraging them to do day one reviews that capitalize on hype.
It's a bad policy meant to avoid criticism. It's like movies. When a movie releases without any press screenings it's almost always because the producers know the movie is bad and want to stunt critics ability to say so. They want their own advertising to set the launch narrative.
Kotaku is positing that since many people live by review scores when it comes to different types of media, that not having a day 1 review only hurts Bethesda, as reviewers who rush to get reviews out to meet the immediate demand of a new game (because frankly, the first reviews will be the biggest attention getters and then they'll be the first Google search result) will undoubtedly be playing under stress and not playing optimally, which could affect the score and how many people pick up the game.
Weltall Zero
Member
It doesn't take a genius to point out why reviewers would be against being provided with review copies, but the article lays out its arguments clearly; you can refute them with other arguments, but an irrelevant ad hominem is not really one.
In particular I see the argument that not providing review copies means rushed reviews and thus counterproductive for the dev itself as pretty rock solid. Anyone has a counterargument for that?
Yabberwocky
Member
There were some really good points made by Jason, but I feel like this line -
- threw me out of the article quite a bit. I did a wait, what?
I do agree with the article ultimately, though, as I don't think Bethesda's review policy does anyone any favors, let alone the reviewers, the consumers, or the poor devs who worked so hard on the game.
- threw me out of the article quite a bit. I did a wait, what?
I do agree with the article ultimately, though, as I don't think Bethesda's review policy does anyone any favors, let alone the reviewers, the consumers, or the poor devs who worked so hard on the game.
In a review publishing cold war we all lose.
Unless someone was going to wait and buy something cheaper anyway. In that case, *shrug*
It's really down to semantics, but yeah, the way most reviewers use the scale 80 is "pretty good", I guess? In any case, this year especially has a ton of games that have scored far beyond that, so for someone with limited time an 80 doesn't mean as much right now as it might otherwise have.
Also that 80 is only for one platform. The other two are upwards of 90-ish, IIRC.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
Agree 100% , I will wait for this game to hit sub $20, my backlog is huge
Yeah, maybe do your job and instead of rushing to be first, try to be the best? The only people negatively affected by Bethesda's policy is reviewers desperate to get those review page clicks. Consumers are affected by shitty reviews as a result of that, but the fault there lies with journalists.
There is no benefit to a consumer buying a video game the second it comes out. In fact, with price drops and patches, you benefit much more to wait a week or 6. Why do reviewers need to have reviews ready for launch day when the only ones benefiting from that are the hype-cycle publishers?
This
SmoothRunningGun
Member
No I would rather have a demo. Don't care about reviews.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Huh? One doesn't preclude the other, you realize?
tearsintherain
Member
I don't think review sites matter much anymore, there seems to be a zeitgeist buzz that evolves on the internet and spreads among gaming fans quickly. For better or worse the Prey demo issues (input lag on PS4, sound issues on all) tanked the game. By contrast Persona 5 and Horizon Zero Dawn got glowing comments from just about everyone and it helped sales.
Getting that push out of the general malaise is the tough part though, Prey really never got much attention at launch and whether more reviews, marketing, press, etc would have helped is debatable I think. After HZD, P5, BOTW/Switch, and Mass Effect Andromeda people feel like they are just in a "just leave me alone for a little while, I'm busy" mode right now.
Prey also feels like a game where twitch/youtube is going to have a huge negative impact. I didn't like the jump scare stuff, I watched a stream of the entire game instead. I might play it some day on PC but not at launch. I saw there were a few nights of 20k+ viewers on twitch of some streamers playing the game, I wonder how many of those people would have just bought the game 5 years ago.
Getting that push out of the general malaise is the tough part though, Prey really never got much attention at launch and whether more reviews, marketing, press, etc would have helped is debatable I think. After HZD, P5, BOTW/Switch, and Mass Effect Andromeda people feel like they are just in a "just leave me alone for a little while, I'm busy" mode right now.
Prey also feels like a game where twitch/youtube is going to have a huge negative impact. I didn't like the jump scare stuff, I watched a stream of the entire game instead. I might play it some day on PC but not at launch. I saw there were a few nights of 20k+ viewers on twitch of some streamers playing the game, I wonder how many of those people would have just bought the game 5 years ago.
There's no benefit to the business too lol. Review copies and embargoes actually benefit all sides because reviews coming out at the same time means a wealth of information for the consumer instead of spotty information and waiting weeks and weeks for reviews. Also can be useful to early sales and video games rely heavily on front loaded sales.
Journalists are now forced into a position to get information out as fast as possible for YOU to read and be INFORMED about your purchase. But here you and others are all saying journalists are the lazy ones who need to "do their fucking jobs."
Aizen.S.Kennedy
Banned
You misunderstand me. Idc if it's make or break for these websites. Idc if it shuts then down or if it somehow causes them to make more money than they are now. I only care that sites always seem to leave out their finiancal stakes when it comes to things like this. It should be listened along with their other issues with this. That's all. One sentence is fine. It's a part of the transparency they like to talk about so often.
Also I don't use reviews to decide if I'll buy/like a game so Idc about the length of time it takes to whatever whatever compared to whatever. My only interest is entertainment. I'll be entertained with seeing which sites stick to their pro-consumer guns and which ones lash out at publishers.
Rained the other day. Did you know water is wet?
Oh yeah and business is kind of cut throat thing and don't assume someone who feels you are in their way of making money is going to help you out.
Something about heat and kitchen and getting out.
Oh yeah. I have become a cynical bastard.
I can't tell who is influencer, journalist, reviewer, commentator, being paid, volunteering, who is really posting on GAF comments, or whatever. Too much crap. I wish there was a set of trusted sources but the whole business of reviews is broke. Too many people hiding behind keyboards. I don't blame Bethesda. Its their game. Their business. Thinking they have data and been doing this for awhile. I think they will be just fine. If not? They will adopt. Like any decent business will.
Oh yeah and business is kind of cut throat thing and don't assume someone who feels you are in their way of making money is going to help you out.
Something about heat and kitchen and getting out.
Oh yeah. I have become a cynical bastard.
I can't tell who is influencer, journalist, reviewer, commentator, being paid, volunteering, who is really posting on GAF comments, or whatever. Too much crap. I wish there was a set of trusted sources but the whole business of reviews is broke. Too many people hiding behind keyboards. I don't blame Bethesda. Its their game. Their business. Thinking they have data and been doing this for awhile. I think they will be just fine. If not? They will adopt. Like any decent business will.
In that case people would rush to have the first review as close to day one as possible though. Which would be rushing. You'd see a Persona 5 or GTA-length game get a review after a couple of hours because it would attract the most traffic.
EditL For example, the same things happens now with films that don't have early screenings.
StereoVsn
Member
That's the problem for this year. I have a backlist with 87-88 and higher reviewed games. When something niche like Prey comes out without any marketing and no reviews it gets way down on the list. Not to mention I still have Dishonored 2 to get before Prey (and haven't played through Deus Ex DLC yet).
So we have a niche game with a few recent flops on the genre, released without marketing and without PR provided by reviews. Nobody should be surprised by low sales.
IISANDERII
Member
I'm virtually certain you didn't read the article.
Papo Swing
Member
This is a bummer all around. I'll just wait until a sensible review is out and see how much it took. I probably will buy it before that.
Still, how early are review copies given out to reviewers?
In the end this game seems to be good and Dishonored 2 was probably top 3 of 2016 for me. I don't get why people don't buy them just because they are good. Of course a lot less people will buy the game on release, but at the end of the day it shouldn't affect it. Of course that is not how it works and some people punish the developers for the Bethesda move.
They should just drop it.
Still, how early are review copies given out to reviewers?
In the end this game seems to be good and Dishonored 2 was probably top 3 of 2016 for me. I don't get why people don't buy them just because they are good. Of course a lot less people will buy the game on release, but at the end of the day it shouldn't affect it. Of course that is not how it works and some people punish the developers for the Bethesda move.
They should just drop it.
SlasherJPC
Banned
A lot of times review code is given out in tiers anyways. To the biggest sites first, then lower tier. Its always a battle for some sites to become first. People apprehensive about a games quality just need patience if reviews make such a huge aspect in gaming purchases.
What exactly do you mean by saying I want a blood bath?
The policy stinks. But it's also not bethesdas job to ensure game sites are reviewing responsibly. Also people don't need to preorder games or buy them in launch day without reading reviews.
Plenty of blame for everyone.
It's not Bethesdas job to help consumers get smarter. It's their job to sell games. If enough people get burned, they'll get smarter too. I don't like that policy myself because I'm a consumer, not a Bethesda stock holder. But that doesn't mean it's not smart for them.
A fast food company sells crap food that's bad for you. But it's not McDonald's job to help you get smarter, make better food decisions, and not eat that crap. It's their job to sell the food.
Why are we trying to give different standards to a game company?
And let's be clear: gaming websites don't dislike this policy because it's anti consumer. That's just their spin to rile people up.
They hate the policy because it makes their job harder and makes it tougher to compete with tighter deadlines. Hence the rushed reviews. But people know who the best sites are, and I imagine those willing to wait for reviews could mostly understand why their favorite sites are delaying their review.
They hate the policy because it makes their job harder and makes it tougher to compete with tighter deadlines. Hence the rushed reviews. But people know who the best sites are, and I imagine those willing to wait for reviews could mostly understand why their favorite sites are delaying their review.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I'm failing to see how these two positions are incompatible. Kotaku wants to be able to have a release day review because that's an unavoidable peak in traffic to sites that report on game releases. This is not in diametric opposition to the idea that preorder culture in the AAA space is an anti-consumer toxic fishing expedition by publishers who keep pushing the line back on how much they need to actually announce about what you get for your money before demanding it.
TroicaBlur
Member
The demo was the bigger turnoff. I don't think its the reviews that are affecting sales.
Angry Fork
Member
And they're all amazing games. The developers don't deserve weak sales, this sucks. I only hope the publishers realize it's not the games it's something else, but I doubt it.
Laurel_McFang
Member
I have to wonder the reasoning behind this. Demos are no longer preferred in favor of limited alphas because it was found demos can actually hurt a game's sales, but I think Kotaku has a point here, had early presss reviews of Prey been out and positive I might have considered purchasing it. Then again Bethesda does do demos now. Someone is doing some freakonomics of marketing, not sure if its improving things.
They are not able to review optimally and it becomes a blood bath to get information out to the consumer as quick as possible. It then becomes a race with sloppy work. Not all places can do like Kotaku or the few other independent reviewers out there that don't require following an embargo set by a publisher or review copies. Kotaku is pretty stable and can take a few blacklists. People like Jim Sterling are independent, he gets his income through Patreon, he can take his time. Most cannot because their business model is different or not as stable as some of the bigger sites. Reviewers need their income.
And with Prey as it is, the demo is considered to be atrocious, there's lack of actual marketing, lack of PR, lack of reviews. It hasn't hit many people's radars.
I would not be surprised if the game doesn't perform well. By the time reviews come out, most might have likely forgotten about it or just didn't know it existed.
Bethesda really messed things up here.
I disagree, I think it is the games. The games may execute what they intend very well, but what they intend appeals to too narrow a market. If they want to keep making them on the budgets I assume they're on then they need to find a way to broaden the appeal.
Angry Fork
Member
They already are. You can play them in any way you want, they have the depth hardcore players want (but some feel still isn't enough compared to older entries in the series) while simultaneously having mainstream mechanics/options in every other regard.
Compared to System Shock 2 or the 1st Deus Ex these games are insanely easy to pick up and play now. Tons of casuals are capable of handling all of the various complex multiplayer aspects in a COD game which are plentiful in their own right.
It's not a matter of casual players thinking these games are too hard/different it's something else (probably them not even knowing these games exist/never trying them, which isn't really the devs fault). I feel like devs have bent over backwards in recent years to try to balance their games for new players + die hard fans.
Seyfert
Member
Both D2/Prey are a good game but it's specific target audience. That's why ubisoft get more sale with not decent but good game that appeal wider audience and it's clearly pay thier bill nicely.
I still personally prefer original Prey 2 than this wannabe that slab Prey in the name. btw Prey 2 style is more wider audience than this for sure. It's openworld , it's shooter , it's everything "wider" audience like.
I still personally prefer original Prey 2 than this wannabe that slab Prey in the name. btw Prey 2 style is more wider audience than this for sure. It's openworld , it's shooter , it's everything "wider" audience like.
I can't believe there are consumers in this thread arguing in favor of less information about a product being available for them to base there decision on haha.
I mean really? You want video game companies to give you LESS information to base your purchase on....??
I'm by no means saying you should only day one purchase a game based on it's review scores, but reviews CAN help point out major flaws in games.
I don't think anyone went into a first day purchase of Mass Effect Andromeda without accepting the fact the animation was terrible, for instance. Did it bother me enough to ruin the game for me? Nope. Was I glad to know about it before hand..Yep.
I mean really? You want video game companies to give you LESS information to base your purchase on....??
I'm by no means saying you should only day one purchase a game based on it's review scores, but reviews CAN help point out major flaws in games.
I don't think anyone went into a first day purchase of Mass Effect Andromeda without accepting the fact the animation was terrible, for instance. Did it bother me enough to ruin the game for me? Nope. Was I glad to know about it before hand..Yep.
toddhunter
Member
I think you are wrong.
There is actually no benefit to consumers for reviewing games early. Every consumer should wait for a game to be released before even thinking about making a purchase. They should then wait a few days at least, read/watch various opinions and then decide to pick up the game or not.
In this context not only are Bethesda's actions irrelevant, but just about all of the problems in gaming created by preorder culture vanish.
So don't blame Bethesda, blame gamers.
This is incoherent. All the opinions you tell gamers to wait for come from people who ignore your advice. If there are no early reviews and everyone waits until opinions about a game come out, nobody buys any games ever.
Early reviews where reviewers are given time to play the game without worrying about the internet's incentives towards speed over accuracy give consumers information they can use to make an informed decision. That's nothing but upside. Even if you don't think those reviews are great, they still provide some benefit.
On the other hand, Bethesda's actions remove this information, but they continue to encourage consumers to buy on day 1 with advertisements, trailers, selected game footage, and preorder incentives. Why would you defend them limiting information consumers can get while they lure players into buying early? That doesn't help anyone.
I'm all for people waiting on their purchases, but that doesn't excuse duplicitous publisher behavior.
And it's the right one. If you're 100% sold on a game you're going to get it no matter what. However, in this instance I haven't been following Prey closely since it's reveal, I figured I'd get it if the review scores were good, and none of the outlets I trust reviewed the game, so... I didn't buy it. That money went somewhere else instead.
If a publisher feels the need to bypass the press, then I feel they've got something to hide, and feel the need to wait on a review. Bethesda's stance on reviews is designed to benefit no one but themselves, and I found their explanation for it insulting.
"I wonder what Prey's metacritic would look like with embargoed early reviews, therefore Bethesda's currant review policy is hurting them."
Great logic there.
What a terribly unfounded article.
1. It is very hard to know whether Bethesda's current review is in their disadvantage simply because we only have data for the current policy for the same games of course.
2. The opencritic and metacritic scores actually went down over time as more reviews were published for Prey..
Great logic there.
What a terribly unfounded article.
1. It is very hard to know whether Bethesda's current review is in their disadvantage simply because we only have data for the current policy for the same games of course.
2. The opencritic and metacritic scores actually went down over time as more reviews were published for Prey..