Support NeoGAF

[Guled]

lets ban their name again

 

[Struct09]

What does that even matter though if they are going to embargo certain reviews anyway until days after the release date?

Because your review could go up early if you're going to favorably review the game anyway. I'm not going to pretend I know all (or any) of the details, just guessing on my part.

 

[Scrubking]

Retreat!

LOL. I just checked out that link and was greeted with a huge Banjo splash background. I love getting news about the videogame media bowing down to publishers from "news" sites that have turned into adverts for those same publishers.

 

[John Harker]

as said before, this only blocks LOW scores, and it is blocking score POST release, not PRE.

They want to block bad scores until a weekend AFTER the game is released. So... basically this is nothing like what you stated.

eh its still essentially the same thing, though i did not know the games UK release date and thought the Monday in question was the day before release

 

[Classic_Gs]

No more preview copies, no more interviews, etc etc. I guess they could blacklist websites that dont follow it.

And the consequence is what exactly?

 

[speedpop]

This is why I can't take gaming journalism too seriously, because it hasn't grown a big enough backbone to stand on its own two legs and tell the publishers to back off.

 

[Stop It]

Retreat!

Well, they couldn't pull this shit AGAIN, not after K&L anyway, stupid Eidos.

 

[shpankey]

They don't give out preview/review builds to them and simply cut them off. Simple.

ya, i'd love to see that. then they would get no coverage for their games, shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

That's settles it! No TRU reviews until next year when the HIGHLY REGARDED Christian Gamer Review puts up their feverishly anticipated write-up!!!!!

 

[infinityBCRT]

earlier today:

Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”

4 hours later:

We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem.

lol... this is the biggest and fastest back pedal I've ever seen.

edit: oh and this is the kicker, in the back pedal they say:

Barrington Harvey has been working hard to ensure the launch scores of Tomb Raider Underworld are in line with our internal review predictions over the launch weekend

wtf is that? they are ensuring launch scores are in line with what they think the game should be scored? isn't that the same freaking thing they are being accused of?

 

[industrian]

ya, i'd love to see that. then they would get no coverage for their games, shooting themselves in the foot.

The media outlets have a lot more to lose than Eidos.

 

[Lord Error]

Esentially, Gamespot guy is saying they will give the game less than 8, considering that they still didn't put a review up...

 

[I AM JOHN!]

The media outlets have a lot more to lose than Eidos.

I doubt this, considering Eidos isn't that big of a player in the grand scheme of things anymore. Aside from Tomb Raider, what else do they have that's a big success?

And yeah, I vote that we ban Eidos again.

 

[speedpop]

The media outlets have a lot more to lose than Eidos.

Like having a dedicated magazine that used to be informative and brilliant, slowly devolve into nothing short of a 20 page booklet of paid opinions between 90 pages filled to the brim with advertisements?

I'm not too sure about yourself, but I'm a gamer first and foremost, not a money grubbing whore. I respect the opinions of those who will put themselves on the dotted line and state how the game is - not resort to the pathetic foot groveling that gaming journalism has turned into over the past decade.

 

[KTallguy]

You say that, but the sad reality is that gamers will access sites with the in-depth previews, interview and other information over a site that doesn't have those things.

Most people don't know about this and don't care. They just want pretty pictures and inside details, whatever the cost. Magazines that suck up to the publishers get more, and it becomes tit for tat, and there you go.

I really hate review scores now, because even sites I trust will suddenly go whacko on me (Eurogamer and Fable 2, anyone?).

 

[industrian]

I doubt this, considering Eidos isn't that big of a player in the grand scheme of things anymore. Aside from Tomb Raider, what else do they have that's a big success?

Tomb Raider Underworld could get 1/100 average on metacritic and still sell over a million copies. Not to mention that media outlets would still cover Eidos' games, but they just wouldn't get any official support.

But my comment was more to do with the fact that most games media outlets are dependent on advertising revenue and "goodwill" of publishers to stay afloat. Biting the hand that feeds them isn't the best move for them to make.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Do reviews even affect game sales that much for Eidos to risk another PR disaster like this?

 

[industrian]

Like having a dedicated magazine that used to be informative and brilliant, slowly devolve into nothing short of a 20 page booklet of paid opinions between 90 pages filled to the brim with advertisements?

Blame the publishers of the magazine. I remember stopping reading PC Zone after Future acquired them, because I knew that what you described was just around the corner.

I'm not too sure about yourself, but I'm a gamer first and foremost, not a money grubbing whore.

It's incredible how you've painted me into some sort of "money grubbing whore" just because of a comment I made. Bravo.

 

[KernelPanic]

Do reviews even affect game sales that much for Eidos to risk another PR disaster like this?

I know people who won't buy a game unless the metacritic is high enough. I think there was some study that showed a correlation between metacritic scores and sales as well.

 

[kbear]

Main thing I don't understand is why TRU is getting scores under 8. Tomb Raider Legend was awesome and wholly underrated. Based off the demo, TRU plays exactly the same except with some more features and better visuals. I think the game is getting a bad rap but we'll see.

 

[industrian]

Do reviews even affect game sales that much for Eidos to risk another PR disaster like this?

Kane & Lynch sold over a million. So I guess not.

 

[gofreak]

I love how totally honest and nonchalant they are about it...

"Yeah, basically we're just managing the scores."

:lol

 

[panda21]

I don't know why this is big news.
This isnt like the K&L thing.

This happens all the time with every industry. It's simply an embargo till launch day on reviews. This isn't entirely news. It's not like they are blocking the review, just asking early reviews till be held out till product not on shelves.

Why does Hollywood not get shit on for not prescreening movies for reviews anymore?
They only invite "select" critics see the film before release.
Same thing, different tactic.

except it actually is out today in the UK

 

[shpankey]

The media outlets have a lot more to lose than Eidos.

how so, it's not like there's not hundreds of other games to cover. eidos only has a few new games at any given time, and their profits depend upon it.

 

[epmode]

Main thing I don't understand is why TRU is getting scores under 8. Tomb Raider Legend was awesome and wholly underrated. Based off the demo, TRU plays exactly the same except with some more features and better visuals. I think the game is getting a bad rap but we'll see.

As mentioned in the Eurogamer review, Legend was released several years ago. Why shouldn't Eidos get hit for running the franchise in circles for so long?

 

[jmdajr]

PATHETIC

 

[Toonami 99]

What happened with Kane & Lynch again?

 

[I AM JOHN!]

What happened with Kane & Lynch again?

Giant Bomb happened.

 

[kbear]

As mentioned in the Eurogamer review, Legend was released several years ago. Why shouldn't Eidos get hit for running the franchise in circles for so long?

As a big TRL fan, all I wanted was a continuation of the story plus some added features and improved visuals, which is exactly what we got. I think most TRL fans would agree.

 

[carlosp]

K&L ist defiantly not a bad game. It is just not as good as we all wished. The problem with it is, that you do the same shit all the time. It just getting harder, not better. If they had a little bit more time to add different gameplay aspects to the game, the game would defiantly much better.

 

[ghostlyjoe]

If Eidos can use its leverage to manipulate review scores, what's to stop others? The ethics in this case are quite clear, and the players here deserve all crticism they get (media outlets included).

But it should be stated that the price of ethical integrity can be very high, and it takes courage to stand up to monetary pressure (which is only growing). What happened to Gertsmann is one example.

Gamers, too, are complicit. Content delivery and maintaining a competent staff require investment, which requires income, which requires advertising, which gives publishers leverage over journalists. Gamers hold the power to alter the status quo by supporting independent journalists, mainstream outlets (that don't get most of their revenue from game publishers), subscription-model services and the like. But nothing gurantees integrity. That's up to each journalist, game rep and gamer -- and how much he or she is willing to risk (or pay) to enforce an ethical standard.

 

[Goldrusher]

I'll just try the demo and see for myself.

Oh wait.

 

[cilonen]

earlier today:


4 hours later:


lol... this is the biggest and fastest back pedal I've ever seen.

edit: oh and this is the kicker, in the back pedal they say:


wtf is that? they are ensuring launch scores are in line with what they think the game should be scored? isn't that the same freaking thing they are being accused of?

What does it say about the game when the publishers themselves are only aiming for 8/10. Way to believe in your product guys.

 

[Y2Kev]

As mentioned in the Eurogamer review, Legend was released several years ago. Why shouldn't Eidos get hit for running the franchise in circles for so long?

I think Tomb Raider's baggage is unfairly weighing down on CD at this point. The series circled the drain for five entries and now the media is jumping on CD for not overhauling the game in their first sequel after just rebooting and overhauling the series. One "stagnant" (meaning not overhauled) entry is all of a sudden, "Oh shit, they're back to their old ways!"

 

[Flachmatuch]

I don't know why this is big news.
This isnt like the K&L thing.

This happens all the time with every industry. It's simply an embargo till launch day on reviews. This isn't entirely news. It's not like they are blocking the review, just asking early reviews till be held out till product not on shelves.

Why does Hollywood not get shit on for not prescreening movies for reviews anymore?
They only invite "select" critics see the film before release.
Same thing, different tactic.

Both practices are obviously anti-market (it hinders the free flow of information to make sure people think the game's better than it actually is). This should obviously be illegal, but games "journalism" is just extended gaming PR most of the time (apart from a few real journalist and occasional events like this). The reason these sites don't do much about this stuff is because their role is not to make objective information available to buyers, but to market games and gaming in general. They represent the interests of their clients, the people who pay to them, and those are their advertisers, and not their readers. It's pretty fucking obvious.

 

[GSG Flash]

What is it with Eidos and blocking bad reviews? Can they not handle criticism.

It's simple really, ifg you don't want bad reviews, then make a good game durr

 

[Toonami 99]

Giant Bomb happened.

could you be more specific? Did Eidos try to delay bad scores of K&L too?

 

[Flachmatuch]

If Eidos can use its leverage to manipulate review scores, what's to stop others? The ethics in this case are quite clear, and the players here deserve all crticism they get (media outlets included).

But it should be stated that the price of ethical integrity can be very high, and it takes courage to stand up to monetary pressure (which is only growing). What happened to Gertsmann is one example.

Gamers, too, are complicit. Content delivery and maintaining a competent staff require investment, which requires income, which requires advertising, which gives publishers leverage over journalists. Gamers hold the power to alter the status quo by supporting independent journalists, mainstream outlets (that don't get most of their revenue from game publishers), subscription-model services and the like. But nothing gurantees integrity. That's up to each journalist, game rep and gamer -- and how much he or she is willing to risk (or pay) to enforce an ethical standard.

As long as companies have to make sure that their games sell millions and millions of copies, they must manage all aspects of risk, including perception. This is a structural issue and nothing to do with integrity, and I think that maybe games of this size (relative to the market) and risk would probably be impossible without this kind of manipulation.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

could you be more specific? Did Eidos try to delay bad scores of K&L too?

At the time, Jeff Gerstmann was the Editorial Director of Gamespot.

 

[tmarques]

Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”

When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”

I love how forthcoming this employee is. Either he's incomparably stupid or has the greatest sense of humour I've ever seen.

 

[Fersis]

I love how forthcoming this employee is. Either he's incomparably stupid or has the greatest sense of humour I've ever seen.

Your Manolito avatar is the best thing i saw.

 

[Haunted]

smh Eidos *cancels pre-order*

This is why I can't take gaming journalism too seriously, because it hasn't grown a big enough backbone to stand on its own two legs and tell the publishers to back off.

.

Publishers still have the leverage without some concentrated effort and unity among the bigger gaming sites, though, sadly.


edit: but yay for Eurogamer. A beacon of credibility?

What happened with Kane & Lynch again?

Sold over a million copies on the back of its marketing campaign.

 

[SlasherJPC]

I really hate review scores now, because even sites I trust will suddenly go whacko on me (Eurogamer and Fable 2, anyone?).

Well review sites don't look at themselves as a collective whole when pertaining to all their reviews and score. They could give two shits if they rated Sneak King a 6.7 but then Spiderman Web of Shadows gets a 5.5. Your telling me Sneak King is a better overall game? Please. Add the fact that they have multiple reviewers rating games, it just makes it a messy affair usually. I don't think I've seen more polorized review scores this holiday season for games then I have in the last couple of years. Its off the charts.

As for Edios putting up a embargo on lower rated scores. Its just bullshit. Put the games out, let the scores flow, and regardless your game is either going to sell well or not. I find it funny their worried about it honestly because most Tomb Raider fans will go out and get this instantly. Granted there is a huge group of great games out right now, but there is a plathora of Lara nerds out there. Hell I'm on of them and I got my copy in hand.

 

[later]

Errr, if Eidos were to no longer give interviews to certain sites, no preview copies etc,.. wouldn't that hurt them more than the website?..

No more hype for their new games, etc.

 

[boutrosinit]

Fuck 'em. I wish games journalism would grow some collective balls and not give in to demands like this. Good on the few who've ignored them.

Journalism does not exist.

 

[Tempy]

You know, what if there were more gaming sites which review games, but not give out any scores. So the gamer would have to, actually read the review and decipher whether it was worth their time or not, rather than looking at a number and comparing it to other, totally unrelated games.

Sure, the publisher couldn't put a "90% from IGN" sticker on the box, but they won't have to fear the "holy" metacritic score being pulled down either.

 

[Ranger X]

BOTH Eidos and the journalist are retarded.


If the medias had balls, they could censor Eidos and they would come back with a huge bunch of money + apologies. Because this news here tells us the internet medias truly affect the sales of a game according the Eidos.

The Eidos is retarded for trying to control the media because now they will lose sales anyways but with the Eidos name instead of the Tomb Raider name. The internet matters it seems so why tarnish your reputation instead of the reputation of ONE of your products??

The stupidity never ends. I can't believe what I am reading.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Heh. My self-imposed ban on buying (or considering) any Eidos published titles, implemented after the fiasco last year at this time, continues to be justified. Fuck those guys.

 

[Littleberu]

Well review sites don't look at themselves as a collective whole when pertaining to all their reviews and score. They could give two shits if they rated Sneak King a 6.7 but then Spiderman Web of Shadows gets a 5.5. Your telling me Sneak King is a better overall game? Please. Add the fact that they have multiple reviewers rating games, it just makes it a messy affair usually. I don't think I've seen more polorized review scores this holiday season for games then I have in the last couple of years. Its off the charts.

Well, Eurogamer is looking for hits and it's been like that since the big hitters have hit the shelf. They want controversial reviews.

 

[Haunted]

You know, what if there were more gaming sites which review games, but not give out any scores. So the gamer would have to, actually read the review and decipher whether it was worth their time or not, rather than looking at a number and comparing it to other, totally unrelated games.

Sure, the publisher couldn't put a "90% from IGN" sticker on the box, but they won't have to fear the "holy" metacritic score being pulled down either.

I think (I hope) that's the direction we're headed in, but most magazines who tried this no-score-policy have gotten hugely negative feedback from their readers about it.