Support NeoGAF

[OriginalJonty]

Added an opinion on the TSA site but they don't publish it (censorship?)...

Comment was approved. Don't know why it didn't post automatically to be honest.

Edit: Now I know. First comments of new members are checked to manage spambots. You can now post as much as you wish.

 

[jschreier]

From your side Jason, is this something that’s very common and we’re just hearing about it this time? Or, has 2K acted out of the norm here trying to pressure them into changing the score?

We don't use review scores because they're arbitrary, meaningless, and useless, so this hasn't happened to us. But obviously publishers try to bully media all the time. Bethesda hasn't talked to us in 4 years because the company's PR head is still mad that we reported on the existence of Fallout 4 before they were ready to announce it.

 

[atr0cious]

Those are extremely fair and valid points that I honestly can't bring a sound argument against. I guess my problem has been with gaming media in general these past few years. Reviews I feel have more power over the masses then it should but that's a topic for another day.

You literally have to grind for hours just to have the ability to grind you attributes past an arbitrary lock. And the means to unlocking this "potential" is tied to finicky games that just barely work, so they ask for 20 reps of something, and you can only force out 4-6.

The game has gameplay that feels amazing sometimes, but everything "fun" is gated behind spending money. 3/10 should be the high score.

 

[watdaeff4]

So if a casino adds in a loyalty program where you get at least 1 cent for each gamble, it's no longer gambling?

If only casinos had thought of this!

You do realize that's a terrible analogy

If you don't, I help explain why it's different. With the casino, you may get the guaranteed 1% back with each gamble but the other 99% is still very much in jeapordy of receiving nothing back or a varying form of payment depending on your odds.

In for example an Overwatch loot box you will get 4 items each and every time. You may or not be pleased with those items however. (It's the only loot box I've ever opened in any game and only because I got them "free" so I can't speak for other games)

 

[Rellik]

We don't use review scores because they're arbitrary, meaningless, and useless, so this hasn't happened to us. But obviously publishers try to bully media all the time. Bethesda hasn't talked to us in 4 years because the company's PR head is still mad that we reported on the existence of Fallout 4 before they were ready to announce it.

I love you.

So much childish bullshit drama over numbers and NeoGAF members are some of the worst for it. I'll never forget the group of people on here causing legitimate harassment to reviewers over Zelda scores. Pathetic.

 

[hawk2025]

You do realize that's a terrible analogy

It's reducing to the absurd the argument that "getting something for sure" is incompatible with gambling.

Look it up.

I'm unconcerned with the semantics or legal argument on the word itself. There's clearly a hole in the law that needs to be regulated and clearly defined. For now, I'm happily call it gambling, because it fits very well. Happy to change it to whatever the legal term becomes in the future.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

We don't use review scores because they're arbitrary, meaningless, and useless, so this hasn't happened to us. But obviously publishers try to bully media all the time. Bethesda hasn't talked to us in 4 years because the company's PR head is still mad that we reported on the existence of Fallout 4 before they were ready to announce it.

I had forgotten about that. Crazy stuff. I wonder if dropping review scores in general might lead to slightly more independence for outlets. It’s absolutely crazy the way publishers lose their minds over metacritic, to the point of bullying media because of it

 

[jWILL253]

Hey, OriginalJointy...

To be frank with you, it's either time to find a new editor, find another site to write for, or just go freelance. Because this is some bush league shit your editor just pulled.

I mean, he fucked up the first time by changing the review score, then he fucks up the most recent statement so badly that he had the revised it?

What a goddamn joke.

 

[watdaeff4]

It's reducing to the absurd the argument that "getting something for sure" is incompatible with gambling.

Look it up.

See my edit. And again unfortunately these things legally are no different than buying a pack of baseball cards.

Since you are getting caustic in this......

Do you really think these publishers don't have legal teams that were initially presented with these situations to weigh in if they were legal or not?

Edit in response to your edit:

I'm unconcerned with the semantics or legal argument on the word itself. There's clearly a hole in the law that needs to be regulated and clearly defined. For now, I'm happily call it gambling, because it fits very well. Happy to change it to whatever the legal term becomes in the future.

I mean that's cool you say you don't care about the semantics I guess. Then why be so vile to those who are just pointing out that unfortunately it does appear to be perfectly legal?

Feel free to call it gambling, and say you don't care what the courts call it, but don't act snotty when it's pointed out why at this moment the courts don't call it gambling

 

[Mattenth]

On OpenCritic, we get 3-4 requests per year to remove publications or reviews from publishers or indie developers. We get way more requests to add reviews from small publications, bloggers, etc.

I thought the Sixth Axis response was fine? Scores shouldn't be used as protest - they should be used to help consumers make purchase decisions based on the quality of the product. They took the score down, took a moment to discuss it, and put the score back up.

 

[Ceallach]

I think you need read a dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling. Simple as, despite how much you protest about it on here.

To wit, the US legal definition of gambling(other countries will vary)

31 U.S. Code § 5362 which covers gambling:
In this subchapter:

(1) Bet or wager.—The term “bet or wager”—
(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;

(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);

(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28;

(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering; and

(E) does not include—
(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1] for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);

(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;

(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;

(iv) any other transaction that—
(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or

(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;

(vi) any contract for insurance;

(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured depository institution;

(viii) participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than—
(I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or

(II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor; or

(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:
(I) All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made known to the participants in advance of the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants.

(II) All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real-world sporting or other events.

(III) No winning outcome is based—
(aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or

(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.

B is quite clear that this is gambling. The No purchase necessary is what saves them legally, maybe. the fact that you can in theory get these items without paying is not a grace of the publisher, it is legal protection. Albeit shaky since it is hard to argue someone who purchases and someone who don't have the same odds of receiving an item.

There really isn't a lot of legal precedent. TPC was taken to court on the grounds that Pokémon was a lottery, but the case was settled out of court. Wizards of the Coast refuse to comment on the secondary market so as to pretend their cards value doesn't fluctuate. No one really has ever been willing to challenge this in court.

The closest anyone has gotten is sports cards. Where three tenants determined that they were gambling

1.Special, rare, or valuable cards or memorabilia included in some but not all boxes of less valuable cards could be seen as a prize.
2.Randomly including these more valuable cards in a box could be viewed as creating an element of chance of winning a prize.
3.Requiring people to buy a box of cards to participate may constitute consideration

.

These three elements determined personnel purchasing packs of cards hoping to get valuable cards were legally gambling, which is why baseball cards came with gum. you were buying the gum and getting the cards as a bonus.

Even this is long out of practice and hasn't been challenged legally in decades though.

So do loot boxed and VC and stuff meet these tenants? Take someone to court if you want to find out.

 

[OriginalJonty]

On OpenCritic, we get 3-4 requests per year to remove publications or reviews from publishers or indie developers. We get way more requests to add reviews from small publications, bloggers, etc.

I thought the Sixth Axis response was fine? Scores shouldn't be used as protest - they should be used to help consumers make purchase decisions based on the quality of the product. They took the score down, took a moment to discuss it, and put the score back up.

Actually wanted to ask if we'll see our score back up on OC soon?

 

[atr0cious]

On OpenCritic, we get 3-4 requests per year to remove publications or reviews from publishers or indie developers. We get way more requests to add reviews from small publications, bloggers, etc.

I thought the Sixth Axis response was fine? Scores shouldn't be used as protest - they should be used to help consumers make purchase decisions based on the quality of the product. They took the score down, took a moment to discuss it, and put the score back up.

What is a protest? This game is inexorably tied to microtransactions. Commenting on one without the other, or the effects of them on gameplay, would be negligence. The product is inherently worse because of MT inclusions, but since this game is popular with a certain population more than others it has led to a lack of oversight. It's about time review scores actually reflected the product instead of just praising the ability to spend more money because of a wealth of "new" options.

 

[watdaeff4]

To wit, the US legal definition of gambling(other countries will vary)

31 U.S. Code § 5362 which covers gambling:
In this subchapter:

B is quite clear that this is gambling. The No purchase necessary is what saves them legally, maybe. the fact that you can in theory get these items without paying is not a grace of the publisher, it is legal protection. Albeit shaky since it is hard to argue someone who purchases and someone who don't have the same odds of receiving an item.

There really isn't a lot of legal precedent. TPC was taken to court on the grounds that Pokémon was a lottery, but the case was settled out of court. Wizards of the Coast refuse to comment on the secondary market so as to pretend their cards value doesn't fluctuate. No one really has ever been willing to challenge this in court.

The closest anyone has gotten is sports cards. Where three tenants determined that they were gambling

.
These three elements determined personnel purchasing packs of cards hoping to get valuable cards were legally gambling, which is why baseball cards came with gum. you were buying the gum and getting the cards as a bonus.

Even this is long out of practice and hasn't been challenged legally in decades though.

So do loot boxed and VC and stuff meet these tenants? Take someone to court if you want to find out.

Damn good information. I wonder how baseball cards get around the bubble gum requirement now? Because that hasn't been included for years and years.

Did the law change?

EDIT:
So if you can grind for loot boxes it appears that is what makes it legal since no purchase is necessary.

Welp there it is. Still a shitty practice though

 

[Orca]

Hey, OriginalJointy...

To be frank with you, it's either time to find a new editor, find another site to write for, or just go freelance. Because this is some bush league shit your editor just pulled.

I mean, he fucked up the first time by changing the review score, then he fucks up the most recent statement so badly that he had the revised it?

What a goddamn joke.

If I was the editor I'd probably have kicked the review back to him asking him to write something about the game, not just rant about the microtransactions, and encouraged him to do that as a separate editorial instead of making the entire review about it.

There are people out there who want to actually know what the game - even though it has microtransactions - is like, after all.

 

[Twentieth]

If I was the editor I'd probably have kicked the review back to him asking him to write something about the game, not just rant about the microtransactions, and encouraged him to do that as a separate editorial instead of making the entire review about it.

There are people out there who want to actually know what the game - even though it has microtransactions - is like, after all.

Pretty much every other review focused on the overall game, while mentioning the microtransactions as "dangerous slide into pay-to-win territory." (IGN) but barely decreasing their overall score despite it obviously being something that has severe impact on the enjoyment of the game for many, many people.

Do you honestly think a reviewer has no right to point out how shitty these schemes are and how much they affect the game, thus severely impacting the review score?

 

[Ceallach]

Damn good information. I wonder how baseball cards get around the bubble gum requirement now? Because that hasn't been included for years and years.

Did the law change?

Lack of oversight. No one has been willing to spend the effort to take them to court. There aren't parents outraged a generation of boys is wasting their lunch money trying to strike it rich on rookie cards these days. Nothing changed legally, just the companies decided to push their bounds and no one challenged them. Because no one really cares about that industry anymore.

 

[hawk2025]

If I was the editor I'd probably have kicked the review back to him asking him to write something about the game, not just rant about the microtransactions, and encouraged him to do that as a separate editorial instead of making the entire review about it.

There are people out there who want to actually know what the game - even though it has microtransactions - is like, after all.

And there are people who want to know when a game has been ruined by microtransactions.

You frame microtransactions as a parenthetical -- the reviewer was pointing out that it's not.

 

[RichiRamjag]

I love you.

So much childish bullshit drama over numbers and NeoGAF members are some of the worst for it. I'll never forget the group of people on here causing legitimate harassment to reviewers over Zelda scores. Pathetic.

Yeah, I didn’t like that. Take jim’s score for example, I didn’t agree personally as I thought better of BOTW, but who am I to tell him how he should feel about the game? The craziness over review scores is just too much. Some people were acting like straight up paid shills in that angry joe destiny review thread.

Pretty much every other review focused on the overall game, while mentioning the microtransactions as "dangerous slide into pay-to-win territory." (IGN) but barely decreasing their overall score despite it obviously being something that has severe impact on the enjoyment of the game for many, many people.

Do you honestly think a reviewer has no right to point out how shitty these schemes are and how much they affect the game, thus severely impacting the review score?

I think it’s fair game. I know I didn’t buy it mainly because of the the VC. My pal who has purchased it almost every year skipped it for the same reason. I’m actually disappointed that more reviews didn’t know them for it.

 

[Mattenth]

What is a protest? This game is inexorably tied to microtransactions. Commenting on one without the other, or the effects of them on gameplay, would be negligence.

I don't want to republish redactions, but their last paragraph in the original review (which we have in our archive) definitely read to me like "this is a fun game that you'll enjoy but I'm giving it a bad score anyway."

The update clarifies and justifies the score: "the core game is fun, but the business model intrudes significantly on that fun."

I think there's a nuanced but important difference between those two lines, and I think the Sixth Axis response recognizes that.

Edit:

Actually wanted to ask if we'll see our score back up on OC soon?

It's updated. Our scripts don't check that often for score updates.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Because it's literally not. In gambling you pit your money against the threat of loss. You always win with loot boxes, always. Therefore it's not gambling.

Are you for real? Are you really telling me that all this time, casinos could have sidestepped gambling laws by giving people a chewing gum when they lost? Do you seriously think you're smarter than people in charge of gambling regulations?

Absolutely nowhere in any definition of gambling (but yours) is it stated that a chance to not winning anything at all is required.
Wikipedia:

the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome.

dictionary.com:

noun
1.
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

thefreedictionary:

gam·bling (găm′blĭng)
n.
1. The activity of playing a game for stakes or betting on an uncertain outcome.

Uncertain outcome. This is the very definition of loot boxes.

 

[Steroyd]

If I was the editor I'd probably have kicked the review back to him asking him to write something about the game, not just rant about the microtransactions, and encouraged him to do that as a separate editorial instead of making the entire review about it.

There are people out there who want to actually know what the game - even though it has microtransactions - is like, after all.

I'd like to think that the editor at least challenged the author to justify the score i.e did the MT's impact the gameplay to justify the lower score if they can then it stays.

Also where does the buck stop? If a game was a glitchy piece of shit *cough* Battlefront 4 *cough* Assassin's Creed Unity *cough* and reviews still gave the score a 8 or a 9, then makes a seperate editorial about glitchy games at launch and how it's a shitty practice that tells absolutely nothing to the consumer about what their experience with the particular game could be.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Hey, OriginalJointy...

To be frank with you, it's either time to find a new editor, find another site to write for, or just go freelance. Because this is some bush league shit your editor just pulled.

I mean, he fucked up the first time by changing the review score, then he fucks up the most recent statement so badly that he had the revised it?

What a goddamn joke.

He said earlier this wasn't a fulltime thing for the people working on it. If we were talking about a IGN, Eurogamer, Gamespot, etc, sure. But it seems that is not the case and this is mostly people doing it because they like to. Bit harsh to act like this, when this might be the first instance of this happening to them, so no experience on how to properly deal with it.

 

[SuicidalSteve]

Jim Sterling posts his thoughts on the matter

Here

 

[OriginalJonty]

It's updated. Our scripts don't check that often for score updates.

Thanks man.

 

[atr0cious]

I don't want to republish redactions, but their last paragraph in the original review (which we have in our archive) definitely read to me like "this is a fun game that you'll enjoy but I'm giving it a bad score anyway."

The update clarifies and justifies the score: "the core game is fun, but the business model intrudes significantly on that fun."

I think there's a nuanced but important difference between those two lines, and I think the Sixth Axis response recognizes that.

Edit:



It's updated. Our scripts don't check that often for score updates.

The original statement is true. Until you notice you're getting a pittance for the time and effort involved. The "anyways" is only something those who don't play this game can add, because you don't see the true depth of damage this does to just the mechanics of the game. Especially when the main attraction is playing in an open world with your friends and you can't even afford to make shots yet.

 

[Zen Aku]

We don't use review scores because they're arbitrary, meaningless, and useless, so this hasn't happened to us. But obviously publishers try to bully media all the time. Bethesda hasn't talked to us in 4 years because the company's PR head is still mad that we reported on the existence of Fallout 4 before they were ready to announce it.

Holy shit that's some grudge.

 

[birthbystars]

Artificially increasing difficulty and grind times for those who don't pay for EXP is bullshit and companies who do it should have their names dragged through the muck.

Cosmetics are one thing, but what 2K is doing here is plain ugly.

I knew that it was bad, but I didn't know it was that bad. That is atrocious. Not just the VC cost, but locking the hairstyles behind a one-time use purchase? Fucking hairstyles?! On top of not being allowed to preview it?

That's disgusting.

 

[cjp]

I’ve been reading TSA since 2008.

When will people start calling it TheSixthAxis instead of The Sixth Axis.

😞

 

[Orca]

Pretty much every other review focused on the overall game, while mentioning the microtransactions as "dangerous slide into pay-to-win territory." (IGN) but barely decreasing their overall score despite it obviously being something that has severe impact on the enjoyment of the game for many, many people.

Do you honestly think a reviewer has no right to point out how shitty these schemes are and how much they affect the game, thus severely impacting the review score?

I didn't say that at all, but that could be a couple paragraphs at the end to explain why - despite the game being gorgeous and having great on-court mechanics - the reviewer couldn't give it a better score...not the entire thing.

Like I said, this isn't really what I'd consider a review of the game. It doesn't mention anything about the game aside from the microtransactions. That's the problem I have with it - he abandoned the chance to write a review of the game, and instead wrote a review of the microtransactions and ignored the game. I have no problem with the score at all, but talk about the game as well.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

I don't want to republish redactions, but their last paragraph in the original review (which we have in our archive) definitely read to me like "this is a fun game that you'll enjoy but I'm giving it a bad score anyway."

Why isn’t this a valid perspective? Why can’t somebody give a bad score to a fun game? Who makes up these rules about what does and doesn’t constitute as what you can do with a review score?

How is the mixed message of the score and the reviews discussion of the game in any way invalid? That seems pretty damn nuanced to me - I liked the game but fuck all this other stuff. Fuck it so much it ruins the game. Boom, done.

Everyone has these high and mighty opinions about what review scores should and should not be used for, and the whole thing is ridiculous to me. Review scores are so absurdly reductive and one dimensional and yet everyone takes them so seriously.

 

[SubAdictos]

Comment was approved. Don't know why it didn't post automatically to be honest.

Edit: Now I know. First comments of new members are checked to manage spambots. You can now post as much as you wish.

Thanks. So, are you the original reviewer? If so, you have my humble support on all this shit. If you wanted to make a statement with your score, good for you. And if the editor didn't like it... fuck him.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

We don't use review scores because they're arbitrary, meaningless, and useless, so this hasn't happened to us. But obviously publishers try to bully media all the time. Bethesda hasn't talked to us in 4 years because the company's PR head is still mad that we reported on the existence of Fallout 4 before they were ready to announce it.

See folks, this is what the publishers think of us game consumers. If they can’t control the narrative completely (or the people that are giving you the narrative), they’re not interested in us knowing anything about the game.

2K would rather us be uneducated consumers than read a number that might be interpreted as negative or critical.

 

[gelf]

This whole incident tells me that reviewers should be giving low scores for these kinds of business practices more often. The publishers are obviously so worried about the precious meta score that even a small number of reviews with low scores could really put pressure on them to change.

 

[Chris1]

This definition of gambling seems extremely narrow.

Let's say I create some "game" or something where a man gives me $200 and then I flip a coin. If the coin lands on heads, he gets a Popsicle. If the coin lands on tails, he gets a PS4.

Is there a chance the man could lose in this game?

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume there's a catch with real world value and items in a game which have no real world value. So $200 is different to a random player in a game that is worth $0. Which would also exclude casino's and the like from abusing it.

Like I said, that's the reason Jagex gave when they added microtransactions to RuneScape and people brought up gambling for kids. There is no way to lose so it's not considered gambling, that's their words not mine. But it also makes sense because if you think of theme parks for kids with stuff like hook a ducks where you always win a prize because let's be honest, if lootboxes are a form of gambling then so is hook a duck.

There was also an idea added posted for some sort of RS lottery for Oldschool RS. I don't remember the logistics of it but Mod Ash posted saying something like that'd be considered gambling & illegal, then someone responded with saying "Ok so why don't you just give everyone junk items like logs to get around that law like RS3 does for Squeal of Fortune (their form of microtransactions)" and he responded with like "We could do that but I don't feel comfortable introducing kids to that form of gambling". Paraphrasing of course as this was a long time ago, but it pretty much proves that's where Jagex's loophole lies. But luckily OSRS is run by the players and the mods there aren't dicks so there aren't any microtransactions at all.

As said I'm not a lawyer I'm just repeating what a video game company has said to get around the gambling law. But Jagex are based in the UK so I'm not sure if it's different overseas.

FWIW I personally consider it gambling but I don't make the laws, and IMO there should be 1) Laws against it or 2) checks made to make sure the person purchasing is over 18 (like at betting sites where they will ask for a copy of your ID)

 

[_Ryo_]

A publisher suggesting that a review site either explicitly change a score or alter it to become a tentative score such as a review in progress is 100% pressuring the site into altering the score. There does not have to be any direct or indirect threat from said publisher, i,e threat of blacklisting for it to mean that pressure was applied, as there is an inherent implication of coercion when suggesting a score be changed in the first place.

It's very unprofessional to engage in any communication with a publisher when submitting a review.

 

[Crazyorloco]

UPDATE:

Score will be restored as 3/10. Statement from TSA site editor to follow later. We're totally aware that as a site we won't come through this unscathed reputation wise. I must make clear that as far as I am aware there will be no blacklisting from 2K over this.

I'm glad you guys put the 3/10 back, but I hate that you guys pulled it away in response to them. It shows that they effect what you do. How can the readers trust you? I will continue to check on the site from time to time and hope that you work on building trust again. Stand by your reviews.

A publisher suggesting that a review site either explicitly change a score or alter it to become a tentative score such as a review in progress is 100% pressuring the site into altering the score. There does not have to be any direct or indirect threat from said publisher, i,e threat of blacklisting for it to mean that pressure was applied, as there is an inherent implication of coercion when suggesting a score be changed in the first place.

It's very unprofessional to engage in any communication with a publisher when submitting a review.

I agree with this 1,000 percent. It gives me an uneasy feeling. I do like that they put back the old score. I also like that this topic is now being talked about more. I don't want this to all continue. I'm not going near NBA 2K19, fix NBA 2k18 2kGames.

 

[NullPointer]

I'd like to see more reviews call out these business practices.

But really, can we stop calling them microtransactions? They're selling $99 virtual currency packs for chrissakes, and they're not alone in doing so. The fact that the lexicon hasn't changed while the offerings have skyrocketed in their ceiling prices in one hell of a coup.

 

[Crazyorloco]

In somewhat related news...2kgames and 2ksupport have muted me on twitter because I told a customer to report their experience to the Better Business Bureau

There's some serious damage control going on right now.

https://www.bbb.org/greater-san-fra...active-media/2k-games-inc-in-novato-ca-146378

 

[Euron]

We don't use review scores because they're arbitrary, meaningless, and useless, so this hasn't happened to us. But obviously publishers try to bully media all the time. Bethesda hasn't talked to us in 4 years because the company's PR head is still mad that we reported on the existence of Fallout 4 before they were ready to announce it.

Wow, God forbid game journalists actually try to pursue a story when one arises (you know, what journalists are meant to do) instead of acting solely as marketing shills for publishers. Kotaku's Fallout 4 leaks actually built a ton of hype for the game and, for a while, put it on the same level as games like The Last Guardian and Half Life 3 as a long anticipated reveal. It's not like the entire story was posted online like Modern Warfare 3's was.

In regards to the NBA 2K review, the worship of review scores is aggravating but I am glad to see that reviewers have become more critical this gen. Say that the trends from last gen continued, would developers lose their jobs over a Metacritic below 95 eventually? Every big named release seemed to get a 90+ until about 2012. Granted, it isn't only publishers who complain but rabid fans as well.

Mainstream reviewers rarely use the full 10 point scale with big releases and this Sixth Axis incident is why. And regardless of recent PR statements, of course 2K intimidated them. They would never admit to doing so and will damage control this incident as much as possible. Hopefully this controversy will be widespread and consumers vote against 2K with their wallets. It's difficult when going against a big franchise but if enough controversy persists, perhaps consequences are possible.

 

[Uno Venova]

No one likes boogie here. But he did a video on it as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA2k/comm..._talking_about_micro/?st=J7W945RB&sh=6ba4e040

 

[Majukun]

Artificially increasing difficulty and grind times for those who don't pay for EXP is bullshit and companies who do it should have their names dragged through the muck.

Cosmetics are one thing, but what 2K is doing here is plain ugly.

that's what people brought to themselves because they couldn't stop buying their precious games even if they had microtransactions in them...good job guys,you played yourselves and fucked me and other people in the process too..enjoy the industry you voted with your wallet for.

 

[pastapadre]

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here regarding the way in which reviewers apply their own personal beliefs about a subject or a design tactic to reviews. Doing so may be the right approach to reviewing a game or it may not be. I'm not sure either way is perfect.

When I reviewed 2K18 I dedicated a couple paragraphs to the impact of VC, which I do feel is damaging to the game. However VC has played a big role in the series going back to 2K13. It was 2K14 where they tried to make it an always-online game in order to spread VC throughout, and because of server problems there were literally weeks at a time where the entire game was inaccessible. 2K course-corrected a bit after that but it never went away. It's played a similar role in every edition since just with a specific mode (MyLeague) being protected from it.

So when I scored my review, the situation with VC played no role in that. Consumers have clearly shown they accepted it over the years. Sales of 2K have continued to rise every year, digital revenue has skyrocketed along with it. When the masses either show indifference or approve of it, who am I to say they are all wrong?

It looks like we're seeing a shift now though with consumers standing up against it and media actually picking up on it, and doing so like it's a new story they've just discovered. If it weren't for the more absurd examples (such as hair styles costing up to 1500 VC) it probably would have been ignored again.

2K will definitely be making adjustments after this but VC is here to stay. They're building out features like The Neighborhood as a longterm play to encourage more spending. I think what they have to do is get back to making fun the priority, instead of penalizing people who don't pay extra money by making the game less fun at the start. You wouldn't be starting at 60 Overall in MyCareer if they actually wanted people to enjoy themselves at the start.

What also fascinates me right now is the vanishing MyPlayers, which has affected thousands of people who've lost the hours of progress and significant money invested into the characters isn't being covered by many (if any) media outlets. That one should be a much bigger story right now.

 

[BBboy20]

No one likes boogie here.

I would imagine being a white supremacist sympathizer would be the case.

 

[Uno Venova]

I would imagine being a white supremacist sympathizer would be the case.

I hope you're not implying I think his hate is unjustified lol. I've been in those threads too.

I still think to good a large voice is speaking out against 2K though.

 

[BBboy20]

I hope you're not implying I think his hate is unjustified lol. I've been in those threads too.

I still think to good a large voice is speaking out against 2K though.

When you try to spin such evil, it's better to find a certain voice somewhere else.

 

[KimonoNoNo]

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here regarding the way in which reviewers apply their own personal beliefs about a subject or a design tactic to reviews. Doing so may be the right approach to reviewing a game or it may not be. I'm not sure either way is perfect.

When I reviewed 2K18 I dedicated a couple paragraphs to the impact of VC, which I do feel is damaging to the game. However VC has played a big role in the series going back to 2K13. It was 2K14 where they tried to make it an always-online game in order to spread VC throughout, and because of server problems there were literally weeks at a time where the entire game was inaccessible. 2K course-corrected a bit after that but it never went away. It's played a similar role in every edition since just with a specific mode (MyLeague) being protected from it.

So when I scored my review, the situation with VC played no role in that. Consumers have clearly shown they accepted it over the years. Sales of 2K have continued to rise every year, digital revenue has skyrocketed along with it. When the masses either show indifference or approve of it, who am I to say they all wrong?

It looks like we're seeing a shift now though with consumers standing up against it and media actually picking up on it, and doing so like it's a new story they've just discovered. If it weren't for the more absurd examples (such as hair styles costing up to 1500 VC) it probably would have been ignored again.

2K will definitely be making adjustments after this but VC is here to stay. They're building out features like The Neighborhood as a longterm play to encourage more spending. I think what they have to do is get back to making fun the priority, instead of penalizing people who don't pay extra money by making the game less fun at the start. You wouldn't be starting at 60 Overall in MyCareer if they actually wanted people to enjoy themselves at the start.

What also fascinates me right now is the vanishing MyPlayers, which has affected thousands of people who've lost the hours of progress and significant money invested into the characters isn't being covered by many (if any) media outlets. That one should be a much bigger story right now.

2K turned the water up too much this time and the frog jumped out of the pot.

 

[Uno Venova]

When you try to spin such evil, it's better to find a certain voice somewhere else.

Eh, I don't agree when it comes to this issue. But I'm also not going to keep talking about unrelated issues to distract from the thread.

 

[OdysseusVA]

No one likes boogie here. But he did a video on it as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA2k/comm..._talking_about_micro/?st=J7W945RB&sh=6ba4e040

does he go on about "both sides" and meeting 2K in the middle?

 

[BBboy20]

Eh, I don't agree when it comes to this issue. But I'm also not going to keep talking about unrelated issues to distract from the thread.

Claiming "the white stock" as a valid side. Never forget.