Support NeoGAF

[aliengmr]

But does it really matter?

Sure, they probably won't get as many pre-orders, but aren't people against that anyway?

I guess I don't see where this is actually anti-consumer. Anti-reviewer maybe, and possibly anti pre-order, but it seems the consumer only has to wait until release, which people advocate for anyway.

 

[CloudWolf]

It's misleading to suggest that, "...most publishers’ Metacritic bonuses require games to hit an 85 or 90."

That wording makes it sound like most publishers in the industry tie bonuses to Metacritic scores. Also if the author doesn't know if Bethesda even gives Metacritic bonuses why mention it at all in this article?

Bethesda does give Metacritic bonuses, Obsidian was notoriously denied their bonus because New Vegas scored an average of 84 instead of 85.

 

[Darkstorne]

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.

That's been my take from this too. I'm sure Kotaku has a good point about rushed reviews affecting scores, but to be fair that could go either way. There are plenty of games I've played that I considered amazing in the first few days but had then soured on by the end of the very first week. For example, imagine if reviewers had been forced to play through ME: Andromeda in two/three days? They'd probably have skipped the majority of the side quests that drag that game down and focused almost exclusively on the core story, resulting in (perhaps) a more favourable review that gamers will ridicule after the first week and question if critics even played the same game.

I really think the bigger issue comes from the free marketing that reviews provide, the hype and awareness they build, and the catalyst that leads to when gamers discuss the title more during launch week as a result. Despite loving games enough to read GAF and sites like Kotaku daily, I had no idea Prey was coming out so soon until I saw the OT on launch day 0.o

But does it really matter?

Sure, they probably won't get as many pre-orders, but aren't people against that anyway?

I guess I don't see where this is actually anti-consumer. Anti-reviewer maybe, and possibly anti pre-order, but it seems the consumer only has to wait until release, which people advocate for anyway.

For consumers it's a deliberate lack of information. It is DEFINITELY anti-consumer and you genuinely cannot argue it isn't. You can argue that it's not much of an anti-consumer policy, but not that it isn't full-stop. The tactic here was to stem the flow of information because too many consumers read reviews sites or refer to review aggregate sites like Metacritic to make informed decisions about their purchases. Bethesda wanted to put a stop to that, at least for the first few days of sales (when sales are strongest) in the hopes it would boost sales. To clarify this in relation to pre-orders, yes you should always wait, but that means wait until reviews are out in the final week or two leading up to release, and don't simply pre-order the game the second it's announced 6+ months before launch. Especially when publishers push pre-order incentives, it's kind of shitty for Bethesda to force consumers to make the choice between pre-ordering for a complete edition of a game, or waiting for day three+ to make an informed decision on their purchase. With most games you can have both by pre-ordering a few days before release when reviews are all out.

For Bethesda, it's only leading to a lack of free marketing and hype building by those websites that the targeted audience reads anyway. So despite games like Dishonored 2 going on to review favourably, they massively underperformed in sales. Prey is almost certainly looking to repeat that story, but it's too early to say for sure right now. DOOM seemed to do okay, ironically because there was a big expectation that it would be a poor game, and the shock that it was actually a great game made for some great news stories in week 1.

 

[peakish]

It's somewhat ironic that Bethesda is one of the best publishers at letting their development teams (and they're some of the best in all of gaming) work outside of flavour of the month games, while being among the worst in bogging them down with crap policies like this, terrible marketing and the hostile takeovers.

 

[Vice]

But does it really matter?

Sure, they probably won't get as many pre-orders, but aren't people against that anyway?

I guess I don't see where this is actually anti-consumer. Anti-reviewer maybe, and possibly anti pre-order, but it seems the consumer only has to wait until release, which people advocate for anyway.

Reviews inform consumers. As a rather minor purchase games are in the same niche as books, movies and music where there are many new releases every month and someone looking to buy something may want to check a review to see if something will interest them over another title releasing in the same window.

 

[killroy87]

But does it really matter?

Sure, they probably won't get as many pre-orders, but aren't people against that anyway?

I guess I don't see where this is actually anti-consumer. Anti-reviewer maybe, and possibly anti pre-order, but it seems the consumer only has to wait until release, which people advocate for anyway.

Did you read the article? Half of the whole point is by making reviewers wait until release, you're essentially forcing them to race through the game to post a review as fast as possible, which are circumstances that do a game like Prey absolutely no favours. If critics were able to play through the game at their own pace and really spend time with it, there's a chance scores could have been higher, thus more sales and more accurate reviews for the consumer.

You can argue all you want about how critics shouldn't race through a game to review it as fast as possible blah blah, but the reality is the sites that post first benefit most.

 

[GHG]

Reviews inform consumers. As a rather minor purchase games are in the same niche as books, movies and music where there are many new releases every month and someone looking to buy something may want to check a review to see if something will interest them over another title releasing in the same window.

And the reviews started popping up within a couple of days after it released. I don't see the problem. Nobody has to buy everything on the day it releases or even before it releases.

Having a bit of patience never harmed anybody.

 

[Vintage]

And the reviews started popping up within a couple of days after it released. I don't see the problem. Nobody has to buy everything on the day it releases or even before it releases.

Having a bit of patience never harmed anybody.

It harmed the sales, which is the point of the article.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I'm fairly certain that's how all reviewers feel.

Actually if all reviewers for all games had to get their own copy they may... gasp... wow... actually be free from the pressure of having to appease publishers and be honest and not often just pre-order driving machines .

 

[KahooTs]

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.

Difficulty or accessibility is just one facet in the appeal. I don't have the answers but I disagree that the lack of success for these types of games is due to external factors. A wide audience are just not finding the experience that they offer engaging.

 

[KingBroly]

And the reviews started popping up within a couple of days after it released. I don't see the problem. Nobody has to buy everything on the day it releases or even before it releases.

Having a bit of patience never harmed anybody.

There's no centralized effort to build up hype for a game, even after its' release. It's a trickle. So instead of gamers being hyped for a game's release, they're shocked to find it came out a week ago.

 

[GHG]

It harmed the sales, which is the point of the article.

If that is indeed the case (which is difficult to prove either way) then it's a case of the publisher shooting themselves in the foot, but that in itself doesn't make it anti-consumer.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Reviews inform consumers. As a rather minor purchase games are in the same niche as books, movies and music where there are many new releases every month and someone looking to buy something may want to check a review to see if something will interest them over another title releasing in the same window.

Unless publishers give out free copies without question to any professional blogger that will publish a review for it you are essentially asking for the reviewers to always be subject to pressure to please the publisher they depend on early access for.

Between wanting to ultimately work for the people they review (i.e.: the game publishers/developers) and depending on them giving early access to content to get more clicks/taps, professional game bloggers have a conflict of interest that prevents them from claiming the journalist title IMHO and really informs customers as they should.

 

[kami_sama]

I really can't understand the reasoning behind bethesda lack of early review copies.
It might have gone ok with Doom (SP impressions and word of mouth saved it), but considering we only had impressions of the mp before it launched, I must say that I think it would have sold a lot more and a lot earlier if the greatness that is the campaign would have been exposed by reviewers.
Dishonored 2 is another case where people seem to love it, but even if there was a very strong marketing push in the end it amounted to nothing because the hype just vanished when it launched.
And now we have Prey, a new game, that people seem to like (myself included), but hasn't had the best sales. First of all, no marketing push, and secondly, it is a new type of game, completely different to it's predecessor, so people didn't have a good way to measure it before it released. With Dishonored 2, you already knew that the first one was good, so going in blindly wasn't a huge issue, but as Prey is "new", and made by a new studio, I think people were more eager to wait for reviews, and because they came after it released, hype had already dissipated.

That is my take, I might be mistaken, but I know what I said about both Dishonored 2 and Prey has happened to me (I wasn't very interested in Doom).

 

[toddhunter]

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.

No, there is no upside if you don't buy on day 1. If you wait till day 7, you will still have reviews, bugs will be exposed, opinions more rounded. This also has the benefit of:

1. People will not do a heap of preorder bullshit, because nobody buys into it
2. Publishers will actually need to release games again that actually work when released
3. Games will not just be front loaded to be AWESOME in the first two hours and then crap for the rest of it. Games will have to actually represent something that you want to keep playing.

All of this is held back by "I need this day 1 lol it'll be fine" people. If people don't do this, and they certainly do not *need* to all your arguments completely fall apart.

Bethesda are not doing it wrong, you are doing it wrong.

 

[Panajev2001a]

No, there is no upside if you don't buy on day 1. If you wait till day 7, you will still have reviews, bugs will be exposed, opinions more rounded. This also has the benefit of:

1. People will not do a heap of preorder bullshit, because nobody buys into it
2. Publishers will actually need to release games again that actually work when released
3. Games will not just be front loaded to be AWESOME in the first two hours and then crap for the rest of it. Games will have to actually represent something that you want to keep playing.

All of this is held back by "I need this day 1 lol it'll be fine" people.

Bethesda are not doing it wrong, you are doing it wrong.

*Standing ovation*

 

[GHG]

There's no centralized effort to build up hype for a game, even after its' release. It's a trickle. So instead of gamers being hyped for a game's release, they're shocked to find it came out a week ago.

"Hype culture" within gaming communities needs to die. It's not neccessay for people to enjoy games and it can actually be argued that it is anti-consumer for publishers to partake in activities which feed hype culture.

All hype culture does is prevent vulnerable individuals from making rational purchasing decisions. Hence the current mess that exists surrounding preorder bonuses and such.

If you feel that "hype" is a primary factor that drives your purchasing decisions then you need to take a look at yourself and question why this is the case.

 

[Roufianos]

Incredible.

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

8/10 isn't fantastic at all, video game reviewers don't use the full scale.

I mean look at all the AAA releases this year, MK8, BOTW, Horizon, Persona, Nioh, Nier, RE7, Yazuka 0, MLB, Halo Wars are all above 80.

You only have Ghost Recon, For Honor and Mass Effect below 80. It's not common for a AAA game to score in the 70s.

So relatively speaking, 80 isn't very impressive and far removed from being "fantastic".

I'm not saying that I don't play games that score 80, of course I will if they appeal to me. When it comes to a wait and see game like Prey though, I'm hardly gonna play it when there's plenty of better reviewed games that I haven't had time to play.

 

[ZeoVGM]

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

It's every logical person's take.

You're not coming back to the thread though, eh?

 

[Darkstorne]

If that is indeed the case (which is difficult to prove either way) then it's a case of the publisher shooting themselves in the foot, but that in itself doesn't make it anti-consumer.

You must be confused. The sole purpose of this "policy" was to remove information from consumers who make informed decisions on gaming purchases by reading reviews and visiting review aggregate sites like Metacritic. Majority of sales for games are during launch, so they specifically wanted to remove information for consumers during that window. It's not like they said "We know this restricts information for informed purchasing, but we feel it's a neccessary trade-off to ensure X and Y improvements we are bringing as a direct result of this." Nope. Literally just less information, because screw informed purchasing. Luckily it's backfired by crippling free marketing and hype buildup from the websites these targeted consumers frequent.

As you can see, it's literally impossible to argue against that being anti-consumer. It is nothing but anti-consumer. There are no benefits, only restrictions aimed squarely at gamers.

 

[GHG]

No, there is no upside if you don't buy on day 1. If you wait till day 7, you will still have reviews, bugs will be exposed, opinions more rounded. This also has the benefit of:

1. People will not do a heap of preorder bullshit, because nobody buys into it
2. Publishers will actually need to release games again that actually work when released
3. Games will not just be front loaded to be AWESOME in the first two hours and then crap for the rest of it. Games will have to actually represent something that you want to keep playing.

All of this is held back by "I need this day 1 lol it'll be fine" people. If people don't do this, and they certainly do not *need* to all your arguments completely fall apart.

Bethesda are not doing it wrong, you are doing it wrong.

This is what it boils down to basically. The only people who are against this are those who:

- Feel the need to pre-order (don't ask me why)
- Feel the need to play a single player game the very second it releases (again, don't ask me why... When it comes to single player games FOMO doesn't need to be a factor)
- Are in the gaming press and suffer clicks/views due to not being able to ride the hype wave

As a consumer there is no downside to the policy. In my case I bought the game a couple of days after release for 30% off after I read a few of reviews and checked the PC version was up to scratch. In the end it was a well researched, well informed purchasing decision and I ended up with a product that was exactly as I expected at a knock down price. Where's the problem?

You must be confused. The sole purpose of this "policy" was to remove information from consumers who make informed decisions on gaming purchases by reading reviews and visiting review aggregate sites like Metacritic. Majority of sales for games are during launch, so they specifically wanted to remove information for consumers during that window. It's not like they said "We know this restricts information for informed purchasing, but we feel it's a neccessary trade-off to ensure X and Y improvements we are bringing as a direct result of this." Nope. Literally just less information, because screw informed purchasing. Luckily it's backfired by crippling free marketing and hype buildup from the websites these targeted consumers frequent.

As you can see, it's literally impossible to argue against that being anti-consumer. It is nothing but anti-consumer. There are no benefits, only restrictions aimed squarely at gamers.

No, you are the one who is confused. You don't have/need to buy anything prior to or at the very moment of release. Information starts to trickle out within a couple of days (actually... Scratch that. HOURS of release is more accurate here due to the internet being what it is today) of the game being released. If you don't have the patience then that's on you.

In addition there was the following:

- A demo prior to release
- Press previews including opening hour videos on YouTube

It's not like you were totally starved of information while there was a gun pointed at your head being forced to pre-order the game.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You must be confused. The sole purpose of this "policy" was to remove information from consumers who make informed decisions on gaming purchases by reading reviews and visiting review aggregate sites like Metacritic. Majority of sales for games are during launch, so they specifically wanted to remove information for consumers during that window. It's not like they said "We know this restricts information for informed purchasing, but we feel it's a neccessary trade-off to ensure X and Y improvements we are bringing as a direct result of this." Nope. Literally just less information, because screw informed purchasing. Luckily it's backfired by crippling free marketing and hype buildup from the websites these targeted consumers frequent.

As you can see, it's literally impossible to argue against that being anti-consumer. It is nothing but anti-consumer. There are no benefits, only restrictions aimed squarely at gamers.

Hype / pre-order culture is much much worse.

 

[ShironRedshift]

You must be confused. The sole purpose of this "policy" was to remove information from consumers who make informed decisions on gaming purchases by reading reviews and visiting review aggregate sites like Metacritic. Majority of sales for games are during launch, so they specifically wanted to remove information for consumers during that window. It's not like they said "We know this restricts information for informed purchasing, but we feel it's a neccessary trade-off to ensure X and Y improvements we are bringing as a direct result of this." Nope. Literally just less information, because screw informed purchasing. Luckily it's backfired by crippling free marketing and hype buildup from the websites these targeted consumers frequent.

As you can see, it's literally impossible to argue against that being anti-consumer. It is nothing but anti-consumer. There are no benefits, only restrictions aimed squarely at gamers.

Exactly, that's what I don't get in all this. Put everything else aside for a moment. Like, whether it's an anti-consumer move, whether it's not anti-consumer, how it affects sales, just put all of that aside for a bit: what, as a consumer, is the benefit of having reviews only start to come out after launch? How is a better situation to wait until the game launches to start getting reviews, instead of having them beforehand? If there's no actual benefit to having reviews come out later, and have that information later on as opposed to earlier, then why are people arguing in favor of that as some type of alright or even preferable situation? That's what I don't get.

 

[Markitron]

I actually thought the demo did a huge amount of damage to it, it was absolutely terrible and seemingly isn't representative of the game as a whole.

Jason is the video game hero gamers don't deserve.

Tell that to Laura Kate Dale

 

[GHG]

Exactly, that's what I don't get in all this. Put everything else aside for a moment. Like, whether it's an anti-consumer move, whether it's not anti-consumer, how it affects sales, just put all of that aside for a bit: what, as a consumer, is the benefit of having reviews only start to come out after launch? How is a better situation to wait until the game launches to start getting reviews, instead of having them beforehand? If there's no actual benefit to having reviews come out later, and have that information later on as opposed to earlier, then why are people arguing in favor of that as some type of alright or even preferable situation? That's what I don't get.

You get reviews for the actual product you end up with. Unlike this:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/halo-the-master-chief-collection

Hence the risk of you getting burnt is greatly minimised.

 

[Vice]

And the reviews started popping up within a couple of days after it released. I don't see the problem. Nobody has to buy everything on the day it releases or even before it releases.

Having a bit of patience never harmed anybody.

I see game purchases the same way I look at movies. If it doesn't pique my interest during the first week or so it probably will get left behind. Having information to judge a purchase on the first day is important when making the choice for consumers. Not everyone has to buy everything day one, but many people make the decision at the store or online and having reviews at hand when deciding what your purchase will be is helpful. As far as waiting a few days goes, I feel that leads to a lesser quality of reviews and worse information for consumers as well as a shallower pool of reviews to pull data from. Or, realistically, less scores to look at.

Unless publishers give out free copies without question to any professional blogger that will publish a review for it you are essentially asking for the reviewers to always be subject to pressure to please the publisher they depend on early access for.

Between wanting to ultimately work for the people they review (i.e.: the game publishers/developers) and depending on them giving early access to content to get more clicks/taps, professional game bloggers have a conflict of interest that prevents them from claiming the journalist title IMHO and really informs customers as they should.

The review practices for games are about the same as they are for any other art/entertainment medium.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I really don't think it mattered too much. Blizzard's games don't suffer from a lack of early or day one reviews. Same goes for Destiny. And in the case of a game like Dying Light, reviewers apparently received copies just two days before it launched. Meaning any day 1 reviews were rushed. In the case of all of those games they ended up being a success even though they either didn't have day 1 reviews or had rushed reviews. Prey's problem was really that it never grabbed people. Certainly not like the version by Human Head. I don't think reviews would've really helped it much. Especially given that it's sitting at an 80. Which is in no ways bad, but when you've got an early half of the year like we've seen, that type of game could just get lost.

I'd argue the same applied to something like Dishonored 2. Another game form Bethesda that never really seemed to grab peoples attention all that much. But then you had DOOM, which ended up doing rather well even though it had the same policy. So, reviews aren't going to save a game if the public just isn't interested in it.

 

[Darkstorne]

No, you are the one who is confused. You don't have/need to buy anything prior to or at the very moment of release. Information starts to trickle out within a couple of days (actually... Scratch that. HOURS of release is more correct here due to the internet being what it is today) of the game being released. If you don't have the patience then that's on you.

Hype / pre-order culture is much much worse.

It's nothing to do with patience. That problem (and I completely agree that it is a problem) is not being solved by this "policy", nor is it even attempting to. Bethesda are STILL attempting to drive hype and pre-orders through pre-order incentives and marketing for all of their games, and are simply removing all information and critique of their games from everyone except themselves during that hype period. No reviews, no aggregate sites, only Bethesda's own word to go on to decide whether you want this game.

You CAN argue that isn't much of an anti-consumer impact because waiting a few extra days to judge the quality of a game isn't costing you much (and that's still ignoring the points this article makes about quality of reviews when they're forced to rush like this, if you even read the article), but you absolutely CANNOT argue this isn't anti-consumer, because it's very purpose is to restrict information leading up to release in the hopes it improves day one sales even if a game ends up reviewing poorly. Much the same way Denuvo doesn't matter if it's cracked after the first few days of a game being on sale - so long as it's held up during launch, mission accomplished.

You guys are completely ignoring the purpose of Bethesda's policy and trying to connect it to a greater issue. Bethesda are still pushing pre-orders. They are not white knights trying to encourage people to wait for reviews. This is entirely anti-consumer in intent.

You get reviews for the actual product you end up with. Unlike this:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/halo-the-master-chief-collection

Hence the risk of you getting burnt is greatly minimised.

Yep, I'm 100% convinced you haven't read the article linked in the OP, maybe not even read the OP. You're ignoring both the fact that removing information is anti-consumer, and suggesting that review quality either isn't impacted (or is even improved) when this article says the complete opposite - reviews are rushed to get as close to day one as possible, partly because consumers WANT that information, and partly because games journalism relies on the traffic and it's all a mad rush to get there first instead of embargoes giving an equal release time across the board.

 

[ShironRedshift]

No, you are the one who is confused. You don't have/need to buy anything prior to or at the very moment of release. Information starts to trickle out within a couple of days (actually... Scratch that. HOURS of release is more accurate here due to the internet being what it is today) of the game being released. If you don't have the patience then that's on you.

Yes, hype culture is terrible and nobody actually needs to pre-order. That's all true. That's also all completely dodging the question: what's the benefit of having information later as opposed to earlier? It's possible for both pre-order and hype culture to be bad and for consumers to not have this information before launch and only be given it after launch to also be a bad move. These are not exclusive things by any means and can very much both be true.

That being the case, regardless of how terrible pre-order and hype culture is (and I do agree, they both are and can go way overboard), regardless of how true that is, how do consumers nonetheless win by having information later as opposed to earlier? No matter how terrible hype and pre-order culture is and how people shouldn't be doing that to begin with doesn't change that holding off information later as opposed to earlier benefits consumers in no discernible way. That being the case, why argue so sternly in favor of this policy? Pre-orders and hype culture can be bad, and it can nonetheless also be bad to without information from consumers 'til after launch. You don't have to choose at all--they very much can both be bad things and you can decry both.

 

[GHG]

I see game purchases the same way I look at movies. If it doesn't pique my interest during the first week or so it probably will get left behind. Having information to judge a purchase on the first day is important when making the choice for consumers. Not everyone has to buy everything day one, but many people make the decision at the store or online and having reviews at hand when deciding what your purchase will be is helpful. As far as waiting a few days goes, I feel that leads to a lesser quality of reviews and worse information for consumers as well as a shallower pool of reviews to pull data from. Or, realistically, less scores to look at.




The review practices for games are about the same as they are for any other art/entertainment medium.

Again, that is on you. If you want to be impatient and only ride the wave of what is hot at any given moment in time then that is your choice. Its an arbitrary restriction to place on something like media consumption, there's no other way of putting it.

Have you never purchased a game or gone to see a movie that is more than a week old? Never bought a game or DVD on sale?

 

[dose]

So Kotaku doesn't think 80 is a fantastic score? Say what.

 

[Budi]

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?

Well as I said earlier, do your job properly media. Take a note from Easy Allies who aren't afraid to sometimes release late reviews. Because they take pride in their work. They don't just slap a score to a game after running through, even though some people are constantly pressuring them to do just that. Care about the work, not the clicks for being the first.

 

[Corpekata]

So Kotaku doesn't think 80 is a fantastic score? Say what.

They said it is not considered that, as in publishers and the industry typically do not like settling for it, not that Kotaku thinks it's bad. Hence Bethesda's policy that screwed Obsidian out of a large bonus because the MC for New Vegas was 84 and not 85.

 

[Vice]

Again, that is on you. If you want to be impatient and only ride the wave of what is hot at any given moment in time then that is your choice. Its an arbitrary restriction to place on something like media consumption, there's no other way of putting it.

It isn't about riding what is hot, but deciding how to spend my limited time on what will interest me based on the information available at the time. With film, if I don't see something in the theater within the first week or two I'll likely wait for it to show up on blu-ray or streaming a few months down the line. With games they'll probably just never get played since there is a near constant stream of quality games in most genres or series.

Have you never purchased a game or gone to see a movie that is more than a week old? Never bought a game or DVD on sale?

Yes, but when deciding to see or purchase something on day one there is a benefit to having a variety of reviews in front of me as they must compete with existing media for my time.

 

[ShironRedshift]

So Kotaku doesn't think 80 is a fantastic score? Say what.

Certainly wasn't for a certain Twilight Princess review back in the day. A score of that nature caused people to lose their minds for a bit. Of course that was ridiculous, you'll get no disagreement from me, but that's neither here nor there, really. Point being, it's all relative in the end, I suppose.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yes, hype culture is terrible and nobody actually needs to pre-order. That's all true. That's also all completely dodging the question: what's the benefit of having information later as opposed to earlier? It's possible for both pre-order and hype culture to be bad and for consumers to not have this information before launch and only be given it after launch to also be a bad move. These are not exclusive things by any means and can very much both be true.

That being the case, regardless of how terrible pre-order and hype culture is (and I do agree, they both are and can go way overboard), regardless of how true that is, how do consumers nonetheless win by having information later as opposed to earlier? No matter how terrible hype and pre-order culture is and how people shouldn't be doing that to begin with doesn't change that holding off information later as opposed to earlier benefits consumers in no discernible way. That being the case, why argue so sternly in favor of this policy? Pre-orders and hype culture can be bad, and it can nonetheless also be bad to without information from consumers 'til after launch. You don't have to choose at all--they very much can both be bad things and you can decry both.

Are you asking what the benefit for reviews that are not rushed for game launch and/or under pressure not to upset the publisher who holds pre-release access hostage are? Well, you get fed researched information and the growth of game journalism instead of pro game blogging.

 

[Markitron]

Well as I said earlier, do your job properly media. Take a note from Easy Allies who aren't afraid to sometimes release late reviews. Because they take pride in their work. They don't just slap a score to a game after running through, even though some people are constantly pressuring them to do just that. Care about the work, not the clicks for being the first.

This is one of the many benefits of being funded by fans, they don't need clicks thankfully.

Certainly wasn't for a certain Twilight Princess review back in the day. A score of that nature caused people to lose their minds for a bit. Point being, it's all relative in the end, I suppose.

Wasn't that an 8.7? Your point is still valid though.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

So Kotaku doesn't think 80 is a fantastic score? Say what.

Have you seen GAF review threads when a reviewer is more than an acceptable standard deviation away from the 'deserved' score for popular games?

 

[Always-honest]

Yeah i agree with Kotaku on this.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Are you asking what the benefit for reviews that are not rushed for game launch and/or under pressure not to upset the publisher who holds pre-release access hostage are? Well, you get fed researched information and the growth of game journalism instead of pro game blogging.

...Which is exactly why, as the article in the OP goes into, companies like Atlus gave reviewers copies of Persona 5 two months before release so they had plenty of time to finish the game before launch and were in no way rushed. This is a completely avoidable problem. That's my entire point: that you're trying to establish some type of false dichotomy where reviewing a game before launch must mean it's launched. However, the simple fact of the matter is that review copies =/= rushed reviews, unless the publisher only sends out the review copy like a day before launch, ala Bethesda's policy. That's why Bethesda's review policy is bad and what companies like Atlus are doing work out much better.

 

[Not Drake]

I don't know if it was asked before, but what's next for Bethesda? Aside from free to play stuff like Quake Champions and TES Legends they only seem to have a port of Skyrim for Switch. The rest of the stuff is pretty far off. New Wolfenstein is yet to be formally announced and I assume this E3 is the time we'll learn about it. It's spring 2018 release at best though. Whatever's next for Fallout and The Elder Scrolls is far away I assume. I can see TES VI being announced this year, but again, it's probably Fall 2018 game. Arkane just put out two high profile releases so I guess we won't see anything from them for a few years. The Evil Within 2 maybe?

 

[Vice]

Are you asking what the benefit for reviews that are not rushed for game launch and/or under pressure not to upset the publisher who holds pre-release access hostage are? Well, you get fed researched information and the growth of game journalism instead of pro game blogging.

The vast majority of good journalism in any field isn't going to be coming from reviews. And, if quality is the thing than the traditional time constrain on wirting about current entertainment hasn't stopped critics in other mediums from creating high quality work. Advanced copies, screenings and all.

 

[GHG]

Yep, I'm 100% convinced you haven't read the article linked in the OP, maybe not even read the OP. You're ignoring both the fact that removing information is anti-consumer, and suggesting that review quality either isn't impacted (or is even improved) when this article says the complete opposite - reviews are rushed to get as close to day one as possible, partly because consumers WANT that information, and partly because games journalism relies on the traffic and it's all a mad rush to get there first instead of embargoes giving an equal release time across the board.

And I'm 100% convinced you're not even reading what I've responded to. Hate the policy all you like but the one upside to all of this is the fact that any reviews you get will be based on the final product you end up with if you subsequently decide to purchase the game. That means any day one patches get factored in, that means if there are any bugs/glitches/performance issues they will be exposed. Reviewers don't get special versions, they are not being put in a controlled environment and they are not being given added incentives to review the game well in the hope of future special treatment from the publisher.

If they want to rush reviews out while sacrificing the quality of said reviews in order to beat the competition then that says more about them than it does the publishers. It also says a lot out the gaming community when as a whole we are valuing who gets there first over who is putting out the best quality content for us to read/watch. Similarly, if you as a consumer want to rush to buy the game before or on release without being informed then again, it says more about you than it does Bethesda.

On another note, again, nobody was starved of information prior to release. There was a demo, there were previews. Having a demo should count for more than pre-release content in my book, you actually get to play the game for yourself and form your own opinion. If you are incapable of forming your own opinion and need your favourite reviewer/youtuber to tell you what you should think of the game then again, that's not Bethesda's problem.

This whole situation surrounding pre-orders, hype culture, day one culture, etc, etc in gaming at the moment is a mess quite frankly. Bethesda are choosing to do something different to a lot of other publishers. Just because it's different it doesn't necessarily mean it's negative. Are they still making their games available for pre-order, yes they are. But the assertion that them not sending early copies to reviewers is an attempt to front load sales before the metacritic score goes up is absurd, especially considering the quality of the games they've released in recent times.

 

[sonicmj1]

No, there is no upside if you don't buy on day 1. If you wait till day 7, you will still have reviews, bugs will be exposed, opinions more rounded. This also has the benefit of:

1. People will not do a heap of preorder bullshit, because nobody buys into it
2. Publishers will actually need to release games again that actually work when released
3. Games will not just be front loaded to be AWESOME in the first two hours and then crap for the rest of it. Games will have to actually represent something that you want to keep playing.

All of this is held back by "I need this day 1 lol it'll be fine" people. If people don't do this, and they certainly do not *need* to all your arguments completely fall apart.

Bethesda are not doing it wrong, you are doing it wrong.

This isn't about me. I almost never buy games day 1. If you're just trying to say people should preorder less and wait more, I'm not going to argue.

But that's not what this thread is about. It's about Bethesda, who did every single one of the three points you listed with this game, and then denied gamers an obvious tool that they could use to assess their product.

1. Prey had preorder bonuses, including retailer-exclusive deals.
2. Prey has controller lag issues on the PS4, and multiple game-stopping bugs that reviewers at major websites have encountered.
3. Prey opens with a more tightly controlled experience that the publisher liked so much they made it the focus of their pre-release demo.

Withholding pre-release review copies changes none of that. It just means that consumers that want to make an informed decision about the game have to wait longer than they otherwise would, sometimes passing up some substantial price reductions that they could otherwise get by preordering (Amazon and Best Buy, for example, both give 20% off for preorders).

Why do you think those incentives exist in the first place? Do you think they're just responding to pressure from consumers? Publishers and retailers are the ones who care about preorders, because it lets them know how many copies to ship to stores and how much money they'll have for other things. They'll keep making these incentives even if hardly anybody uses them. For people who are confident that they'll enjoy the game they're getting, they can save money this way.

The existence of that shit doesn't bother me, because I don't need it. I often save a lot of money by waiting a few months for games I want to drop in price. But since they are going to do this stuff, the least they could do is make sure people have access to pre-release opinions and footage so they know what they're getting into.

 

[Darkstorne]

And I'm 100% convinced you're not even reading what I've responded to. Hate the policy all you like but the one upside to all of this is the fact that any reviews you get will be based on the final product you end up with if you subsequently decide to purchase the game. That means any day one patches get factored in, that means if there are any bugs/glitches/performance issues they will be exposed. Reviewers don't get special versions, they are not being put in a controlled environment and they are not being given added incentives to review the game well in the hope of future special treatment from the publisher.

If they want to rush reviews out while sacrificing the quality of said reviews in order to beat the competition then that says more about them than it does the publishers. It also says a lot out the gaming community when as a whole we are valuing who gets there first over who is putting out the best quality content for us to read/watch. Similarly, if you as a consumer want to rush to buy the game before or on release without being informed then again, it says more about you than it does Bethesda.

On another note, again, nobody was starved of information prior to release. There was a demo, there were previews. Having a demo should count for more than pre-release content in my book, you actually get to play the game for yourself and form your own opinion. If you are incapable of forming your own opinion and need your favourite reviewer/youtuber to tell you what you should think of the game then again, that's not Bethesda's problem.

This whole situation surrounding pre-orders, hype culture, day one culture, etc, etc in gaming at the moment is a mess quite frankly. Bethesda are choosing to do something different to a lot of other publishers. Just because it's different it doesn't necessarily mean it's negative. Are they still making their games available for pre-order, yes they are. But the assertion that them not sending early copies to reviewers is an attempt to front load sales before the metacritic score goes up is absurd, especially considering the quality of the games they've released in recent times.

For the record, I don't pre-order before reviews. I'm one of the few who have the patience to wait out certain games - Andromeda for example being a game I'm still waiting on despite loving the previous trilogy. But it's EXACTLY games like Andromeda that make me terrified of this situation. As if reactions to Andromeda weren't bad enough, imagine how people would have reacted to zero review copies being delivered, and then reviews for the game rushing to get as close to launch as possible.

I think our differences in opinion comes from me looking at this policy as it impacts the majority, and you looking at it as it impacts an insanely small minority of "ideal" people who wait patiently for games regardless of review dates to ascertain its state of play. We don't live in an ideal world where most gamers are happy to wait multiple days. They want the information and critical assessment of a product on the day the product is available for sale (as they should, that's fair practice). And we don't live in an ideal world where games journalism is driven entirely by gold standards of writing quality, where financial viability and monthly turnover isn't a factor at all. Bethesda's policy restricts both information to consumers, and the time critics have to review a game, without providing any benefits whatsoever in real world scenarios. The only potential benefit was increased day one sales, but it seems like that isn't working out.

 

[Nanashrew]

Some of you are wrongly attributing reviews to the most dangerous ends of hype culture. Reviews are necessary. Nearly every reviewer inside and outside this medium gets some kind of advanced copy of a product or an advanced screening of entertainment to review and let the consumer be notified and informed of it.

People's reactions to a review come before ever seeing the review. The people in the deepest ends of hype culture have already decided what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. The reviews have little to do with it. They're going to lash out and rip a reviewer to shreds for a bad review or give endless praise depending on the score given.

You want to try and abolish hype cycles and the hype culture? Try tacking the industry that tries to sell you a game before you even know what it is and force feeds you bullcrap. Prey has pre-order bonuses because they assumed you would pre-order with little to no knowledge about the game or the experiences. It's predatory.

Ya'll are fighting journalists and reviewers for saying it's predatory and eating up the publisher's policy as something great which is harmful to everyone.

 

[Vintage]

And I'm 100% convinced you're not even reading what I've responded to. Hate the policy all you like but the one upside to all of this is the fact that any reviews you get will be based on the final product you end up with if you subsequently decide to purchase the game. That means any day one patches get factored in, that means if there are any bugs/glitches/performance issues they will be exposed. Reviewers don't get special versions, they are not being put in a controlled environment and they are not being given added incentives to review the game well in the hope of future special treatment from the publisher.

Mostly final game code is done weeks before release. If there a issues that can be fixed by day 1 patch, reviewer would note that or that's even being mentioned in review guidelines. These are usually very small issues that does not reflect the overall quality of the game.

If they want to rush reviews out while sacrificing the quality of said reviews in order to beat the competition then that says more about them than it does the publishers. It also says a lot out the gaming community when as a whole we are valuing who gets there first over who is putting out the best quality content for us to read/watch. Similarly, if you as a consumer want to rush to buy the game before or on release without being informed then again, it says more about you than it does Bethesda.

Oh, Bethesda is innocent as a puppy, it was all our fault! Well, no. It's Bethesda who makes reviewers rush by not providing early copies and it's Bethesda who does an aggressive marketing campaign to generate hype. If they didn't provide any marketing whatsoever and publicly stated "Don't buy our game, wait a week before reviews", then your point would be a bit closer to truth, but now Bethesda is a big catalyst in this whole situation.

On another note, again, nobody was starved of information prior to release. There was a demo, there were previews. Having a demo should count for more than pre-release content in my book, you actually get to play the game for yourself and form your own opinion. If you are incapable of forming your own opinion and need your favourite reviewer/youtuber to tell you what you should think of the game then again, that's not Bethesda's problem.

Demo is a great thing, but it doesn't substitute reviews as you see only a small cherry picked part of the game. Nothing stops them from releasing a demo and having pre-release reviews.

This whole situation surrounding pre-orders, hype culture, day one culture, etc, etc in gaming at the moment is a mess quite frankly. Bethesda are choosing to do something different to a lot of other publishers. Just because it's different it doesn't necessarily mean it's negative. Are they still making their games available for pre-order, yes they are. But the assertion that them not sending early copies to reviewers is an attempt to front load sales before the metacritic score goes up is absurd, especially considering the quality of the games they've released in recent times.

There is nothing absurd about that. We've seen hundreds of times here on GAF where people buy before reviews and end up being severely disappointed and tricked by the marketing. Just look at NMS or dozens of other games.

Overall, Bethesda is doing literally nothing to improve the situation for the customer. All they do is take away the benefits. If you think taking away good things for consumer isn't anti-consumer, I've no idea what's the point of discussing this with you any longer.

 

[00ich]

Actually if all reviewers for all games had to get their own copy they may... gasp... wow... actually be free from the pressure of having to appease publishers and be honest and not often just pre-order driving machines .

Instead they rush to review the game first, because that's where the clicks are.

 

[MosquitoSmasher]

I don't mind this policy at all personally because that demo pretty much sealed the deal for me. I loved it and that was enough. But I'm sure it's still very important for many people in general.

Long story short I just hope this won't eventually mean problems for these studios. I would fucking hate to see Arkane closing because the sales aren't exactly great. Hopefully the sales improve because man, Prey deserves it. A goddamn good SP game and I want developers to keep making those.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

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

Perhaps you could explain who benefits from Bethesda's decision to withhold review copies? I can't see any positive side to this at all. Presumably it's to allow Bethesda to control the marketing and messaging pre-release, but with Prey they've done a remarkably poor job of raising awareness and even letting people know it was released.

Actually if all reviewers for all games had to get their own copy they may... gasp... wow... actually be free from the pressure of having to appease publishers and be honest and not often just pre-order driving machines .

Jim Sterling talked about this in one of his videos, and pointed out that having deadlines actually helps with planning & managing his workload. I imagine without review copies and embargo deadlines publications will become more wafty about reviewing certain games, which doesn't benefit the game publisher at all.