You're not seriously claiming that TB wasn't a gator, are you?
-
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.
TotalBiscuit - I will now talk about Bethesda's review policy for just over 21 mins
- Thread starter pants
- Start date
You're not seriously claiming that TB wasn't a gator, are you?
If they feel the need to keep consumers as uninformed as possible to exploit their hype, the AAA market does not deserve to be sustainable.
Well he started gamergate to talk about ethical and professional concerns relevant to the game press. Not his fault some people started harassing people.
ManUnkindH
Member
Developers and publishers have been practicing this and other shit for years. Why is this such a big thing only now?
AntiFacebook
Member
If someone wants a game so much that he is gonna buy it on release day, would reviews manage to change is mind?
Reviews are only useful to people who aren't sure about a game, and those won't buy ot on the release date anyway.
Reviews are only useful to people who aren't sure about a game, and those won't buy ot on the release date anyway.
It's not going to happen though is it, just look at the amount of people who brought the Ultimate (£80) edition of Forza Horizon 3 to get the 4 day early access.
Yeah, it was all about ethics in games journalism. /s
pants
Member
I kinda think AAA gaming is fucked yes, which is why people have been playing with F2P, DLC, season passes, pre order bonuses etc, these games arent getting cheaper, the marketing costs arent being driven down (although i feel they could save money here by redirecting some of those Superbowl ads etc towards social networks and community outreach programs) so yeah I do think an element of this is to preserve the status quo. I do hope the industry figures out a better way of making extra cash off video game development, maybe use the CG assets and make a direct to blu ray movie? idk, i have no answers here either but I fundamentally disagree that the way you do it is to turn around and try and fuck your consumers.
ClosingADoor
Member
It was never a blanket statement before from a company. They used to do this case by case. Bethesda is now just saying; we are doing it for everything.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I have no idea; I haven't followed it at all. I only know the general gist, and a few people who are utter cunts like Milo Yiannopolis (sp).
Easier said than done.
On one hand, publishers are trying to keep consumers as uninformed about the product for as long as they can possibly do so, while at the same time they're enticing us to pre-order with exclusive goodies and limited editions, and - most recently - exclusive early access to a game.
Vincent Grayson
Member
I don't like TB at all, both because I find his personality abrasive and his association with certain deplorables, but this is not accurate.
He's said some shitty things about people who have been targeted by GG. He's also certainly been known to shine a light on people he disagreed with and let his fans/followers do the rest, many of whom are 100% GG types, but to suggest that he started it at all is false.
A GAFer in one of the GG threads did a great post detailing all the crap TB said, I can't seem to find it. But anybody that followed the events of GG knows about TB and his "position".
Shadylunchbox
Member
Be reasonable?!?! NOOOOOOO
i view pre-orders like season passes... it's a "gamble" but a choice you have. it can make way for some dickish practices but its not the end if the world if you have to wait awhile after release
i do feel for the reviewers whose livelihood can depend on getting reviews out in a timely manner but i think in the long run pushing reviews closer to or on release date will mitigate the hype/fear of missing out/Day 0 culture that manipulates people into buying deceptively shitty games
i do feel for the reviewers whose livelihood can depend on getting reviews out in a timely manner but i think in the long run pushing reviews closer to or on release date will mitigate the hype/fear of missing out/Day 0 culture that manipulates people into buying deceptively shitty games
SeeNoWeevil
Member
The solution to this problem is "just wait a couple of days". The people who were pre-ordering were the ones getting burnt and will continue to do so regardless. Those who weren't are still unlikely to be.
That's great and all, but what does it have to do with the merits of launch day embargoes?
I find this to be in really poor taste. It worked out okay for Doom, but Bethesda realizes the hype will be off the charts for the next Fallout or Elder Scrolls. No need to lose some money to bad reviews, if they happen.
pants
Member
Imagine if the next console Fallout/ES game has another 40 hour + save game bug where your instance grinds down to 3fps.
The problem with AAA is publishers are raising the bar so high to beat other AAA publishers. Gamers want a great game first and eye candy is great but it's not solely what makes your game successful. Unfortunately publishers see eye candy as an easy sell that crushes most competition.
Spacecowboy77
Member
Honestly, I kind of find it ridiculous that TB's sweetheart company Blizzard, does this for years and yet he's not bothered
Blizzard normally does not even send reviews copies on launch day, Diablo 3 launch being the more memorable example for this bullshit
But hey, fuck Bethesda right?
Blizzard normally does not even send reviews copies on launch day, Diablo 3 launch being the more memorable example for this bullshit
But hey, fuck Bethesda right?
Heavy_D206
Member
I hope Rockstar jumps on this train and stops sending out games early to reviewers.
Seeing all the IGN coverage of GTA V before it released just pissed me off knowing they were playing the game long before I could get my hands on it.
Seeing all the IGN coverage of GTA V before it released just pissed me off knowing they were playing the game long before I could get my hands on it.
Declaimer: I'm not defending Beth's decision but don't see it as a major issue for the gamer either, it's a major issue for gaming press only.
buying a game day 5 or day 10 is not the end of the world.
again: it's the gamer's fault
as a consumer you should make your own decision with enough feedback, don't blame the makers for convincing you with hype.
this scam will affect the rushing gamer only, the one who'll not wait for reviews to begin with.
I'm not ok with less info ,, I'm the opposite actually: I advise any gamer to not pre-order any game and wait for all the feedback he needs before purchasing.
buying a game day 5 or day 10 is not the end of the world.
again: it's the gamer's fault
as a consumer you should make your own decision with enough feedback, don't blame the makers for convincing you with hype.
this scam will affect the rushing gamer only, the one who'll not wait for reviews to begin with.
toddhunter
Member
Two options spring to mind:
This is the culmination of years of anti-consumer behaviour that the game reviewers are becoming more fed up with and want to take a stand.
OR
Game reviewers are used to being paid money to produce hyped up pre-release reviews of mediocre AAA games and are complaining because they are not getting their sweet deals.
....
Probably the second one.
RocknRola
Member
I can see how this is kinda shady for a dev/publisher to do, as it means all gameplay footage will be controlled by them until it actually launches, however for me it doesn't really matter too much.
I always wait a bit for reviews and gameplay to be available online so I can get a decent feel for the game. Also play the demo, when it exists. So in my case it makes little difference, though I can see how this would affect users in general and possibly lead them into buying a game without real knowledge of it's pros/cons.
I always wait a bit for reviews and gameplay to be available online so I can get a decent feel for the game. Also play the demo, when it exists. So in my case it makes little difference, though I can see how this would affect users in general and possibly lead them into buying a game without real knowledge of it's pros/cons.
Jacksinthe
Banned
This is like saying "well, we all know people drive drunk, so just be extra careful on the road. Problem solved!"
No. This doesn't solve the problem of devs/pubs purposefully avoiding pre-release review coverage. The consumer should definitely be informed before making a purchase but when devs/pubs load their games with preorder bonuses and the like - the dev can't fucking ask you to buy their game ahead of time and in the same breath not do what is needed to inform you of what the fuck you are buying.
Vincent Grayson
Member
Of course they can. You just need to say "Nope".
If gamers can't control themselves enough to wait on reviews, that's on them. Personally, I'll continue pre-ordering Bethesda games at launch, because they've yet to release something I wasn't happy with, so this policy is utterly irrelevant to me.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
You make it sound like you're incapable of not buying the game on release day and holding off a couple of days for the review.
He wasn't a "founding member", but he certainly did his best to legitimize the movement. He was one of the loudest voices saying that Gamer Gate was about ethics in games journalism, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the rampant misogyny in that movement.
He was vocal enough about it, it isn't hard to find him talking about it.
No it is not. Right now most releases have a review up before or at launch day. That will no longer be the case once everyone jumps on this train.
Dragonslayer_023
Banned
If you look at it this way, this is kind of good for gamers. People wont be led astray by high reviews for AAA games and might instead wait for launch when there are more impressions out from non-journalists.
Blizzard's biggest and latest release (Overwatch) featured a no-preorder-required open beta. Same goes for Heroes of the Storm and both Starcraft Expansions. I think with regards to the multiplayer content of their games they're being pretty reasonable.
They're far from perfect but they're also nowhere close to 'total pre-release info lockdown' territory.
absolutely not.
An embargo means that reviewers have the time to thoroughly test a game and what they release after the embargo lifts is a review based on a thorough, non-rushed experience of the game.
A ban of pre-release review copies means that outlets will rush to be the among the first outlets to release their review.
It's absolutely detrimental to the average quality of release day / week reviews.
SLHellbound
Banned
This is the wrong thing to do, an embargo is one thing but this entirely without a good reason other than to keep day one sales high. As a general rule I don't pre order games. I almost broke that rule for No Man's Sky. Dodged a bullet there. I did pre order Rise of Iron Expansion and the South Park. ROI wasnt a big investment but ultimately disappointing. As far as South Park goes I trust Matt and Trey to make sure the game is good. If they are involved in a project it will be good.
I might be imagining things but i think TB said in one of his podcasts that he valued the idea that they originally had but he condemned the shitshow that they became or something like that. I might be completely wrong but i'm pretty sure that i remember him saying something along those lines.
You've never pre-ordered something you didn't like?
it's incredibly rare. but when i do i sell it on for what i paid for it on ebay (usually more since the pre-order price was lower anyway). i lose nothing, if anything i gain in that situation... now, if i was a digital only buyer, things may be different, but i'm not.
If that is the case then it was LONG after the degradation. He was defending them when they were doing all sorts of disgusting shit. If he tried to distance himself then it was long after the fact.
Im fine with it as long as some twitch streamers I follow get advanced copies. I'm far more easily swayed seeing an actual person play the game and seeing their reactions live than a canned review.
The only issues would be critical errors that might completely hinder progress for a game, and lets be serious 99/100 times that game wouldn't be reviewed in the first place or the NDA signed by the reviewers would tell them to ignore it because the day 1 patch would fix it.
The only issues would be critical errors that might completely hinder progress for a game, and lets be serious 99/100 times that game wouldn't be reviewed in the first place or the NDA signed by the reviewers would tell them to ignore it because the day 1 patch would fix it.
ClosingADoor
Member
You know you're not getting the game earlier yourself anyway right? This is a strange complaint.
And Rockstar doesn't sent stuff out early anyway. They invite some people on review events. With websites like IGN they make deals to get pre release content, which will happen anyway. That is not a review.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Both of you missed the part where I said:
"The consumer should definitely be informed before making a purchase but"
That "but" is the key word to what follows after.
You both also miss the point. If you are withholding content based on preorders and purposefully hiding your game from consumers by way of reviews - you're a prick. Fuck any developer that does this. It's shady as fuck. We are giving out keys to journos and even GAF 2 weeks before release on PS4 and PC with a lift 1 week before release and have no preorder bonuses.
I'm not afraid of my game and I'm not in the business of pulling wool down over someone's eyes. Devs and pubs that do have 1 goal in mind. It's shit, flat out. Then again I feel stuff like preorder bonuses, DLC over legit expansions, micros in full priced games, etc are shit so I have a very poor perception of many in this industry. There's no reason a dev that runs a tight of a ship as I do with a 2-man team can remain consumer focused but pubs and devs with money to burn just look for ways to get more money to burn, consumer be damned.
His Majesty
Banned
It's all about withholding third party impressions from the customer as long as possible and feeding them their own hype, bullshots and trailers.
Disgusting anti-consumer practices but I'll probably end up buying Dishonored anyway. Not day 1 though. Been burned on that too many times in the past.
Disgusting anti-consumer practices but I'll probably end up buying Dishonored anyway. Not day 1 though. Been burned on that too many times in the past.
yeah, it still undermines the reason why we (sadly, need to) have embargoes.
Now sure, we could all be so wise and say "just wait for the reviews of serious outlets who don't rush their review (many of which are subscription / patreon funded" - but i do believe that, among the websites that are ad-supported (and thereby dependent on the clicks during the release day / week hype-cycle) there's many great reviewers that would be hurt by this.
Just look at the No Man's Sky initial sales figures and consecutive backlash. Had there been a decent enough time window where reviewers had access to the actual release version (1.03) of the game, maybe some (certainly more than we got) reviews would have painted a far less optimistic picture of the game. - and far more people would have possibly refrained from getting a flawed product.
It's more like: reviewers are used to having the time to spend to review games to get them out in a timely fashion. With policies like this, it becomes a race to get reviews out, which is INCREDIBLY unpleasant to do as a reviewer, especially if you care at all about your writing (and lots of writers actually do!).
Remember when Medal of Honor: Warfighter got review copies like... a few hours before the embargo lifted? People were racing at breakneck speed through the campaign to review it (sup, Polygon?) just to get reviews out in time.
Smarter sites, like Kotaku (I freelance for them, fyi), have been comfortable with doing late reviews for a long time. As Stephen Totilo has pointed out, Kotaku's policy of covering games after they're out has proven to be more successful than following the publisher-controlled pre-release hype cycle and relying on PR departments to drip-feed content.
I believe Rock, Paper, Shotgun's John Walker was tweeting the other day about how reviews don't really affect hits that much. Personally, I think it's a holdover from the magazine days, where having reviews actually mattered because that was the only way to access reviews.
In four years of writing about video games professionally, I don't know of anyone who's been paid to write a positive review of a game. There is literally zero evidence of this being this case, ever. I have no idea why this myth persists.
Vincent Grayson
Member
I missed nothing. I'm disagreeing with you.
They are welcome to offer pre-order bonuses and collector's editions and whatever the fuck else they want.
If you aren't confident the game will be good, don't buy before getting a review. I just don't see what's so complicated about this stuff.
Yes, they want your money any way they can get it. In my experience, pre-ordering has rarely burned me, so I'm perfectly comfortable with the situation as-is. People who want to be more cautious wait a bit and make their decision with the help of post-release reviews. I don't see a problem with that.
It's only the overzealous "gotta have everything" people who are getting caught up in this. Yes, if you simultaneously want everything that might come as a result of buying before release and a review unbiased by early access or other weird review things, then you're shit out of luck, but I'm okay with that, because that kind of consumer doesn't make much sense to me.
I would be much more sympathetic to this is pre-orders tended to include meaningful content, but that's almost never the case.
navii
My fantasy is that my girlfriend was actually a young high school girl.
I could be just a sarcastic old uninformed bastard. But I think the only reason the journalists are getting all up upset about this now is that it's starting to affect them more and more. Getting the game at the same time as us means, that amongst other things, that their review is almost pointless.
(I'm not saying their opinions are not worth writing/reading.)
From my understanding embargos are different because they can have a review ready for the release date. Now they have to play and review the game all the while the people they are writing for are playing it already.
Reviewers are getting shafted (as well as us), but acting as if you are helping us by saying don't get pre-orders, saying it in 2016, is like an earthquake warning when my house is in rubble.
(I'm not saying their opinions are not worth writing/reading.)
From my understanding embargos are different because they can have a review ready for the release date. Now they have to play and review the game all the while the people they are writing for are playing it already.
Reviewers are getting shafted (as well as us), but acting as if you are helping us by saying don't get pre-orders, saying it in 2016, is like an earthquake warning when my house is in rubble.
ClosingADoor
Member
People are generally unaware that any respectable outlet has a divide between the editorial team and sales. So when they see a higher review score then they think a game deserves (which is all subjective anyway) the easiest accusation to make is they are being bribed.
Of course it affects the media outlets. Although to what extend is up for debate. Reviews are not the only content they do of course which gets pageviews.
But to pretend it is only an issue because they want pageviews is silly. From the publisher this is an anti-consumer practice, since they simply want a week or so without any review scores, so if it is bad it will not impact sales. How effective this is, I don't know. I'm guessing a ton of people complaining on social media how they just wasted $60 is more damaging then a more nuanced review that also points out the positives.