• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How unethical is it that publishers have embargoes on released games?

I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Modern Warfare 3 was out in a lot of areas before Activision allowed reviews to be posted (At 3:00 AM EST) and I think this has been the case with a few other games as well...Isn't this really slimy? Not allowing reviews of a product that has already been released just seems terrible and the beginning of a slippery slope. Game reviews are already pretty worthless, but this seems like the most dangerous trend going on right now in that sector of gaming. I think more sites need to start protesting this ridiculousness or I think this will lead to publishers putting embargoes on the game until a week or so after its launched.
 
MW3 is going to sell a quintillion whether its good or not. People don't care.

For other games, yes it's a problem.
 
CrocMother said:
Exactly I think his point is that it sets a bad precedent.
Click to expand...

It's a bad precedent for sure, but I don't think any other game could probably get away with it outside GTA or anything Rockstar did.
 
Embargoes are there to make sure people don't rush to release their reviews before they have proper time with the game.

They also sometimes ask for reviews to be held until the day of release so people can see the reviews and get hyped to go out right then and get the game.
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Embargoes are there to make sure people don't rush to release their reviews before they have proper time with the game.

They also sometimes ask for reviews to be held until the day of release so people can see the reviews and get hyped to go out right then and get the game.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the embargoes, but they should be lifted at least a few days before a game comes out. For a publisher to mandate a "launch day embargo" on a game gives the impression that they don't stand behind the quality of their game.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Modern Warfare 3 was out in a lot of areas before Activision allowed reviews to be posted (At 3:00 AM EST) and I think this has been the case with a few other games as well...Isn't this really slimy? Not allowing reviews of a product that has already been released just seems terrible and the beginning of a slippery slope. Game reviews are already pretty worthless, but this seems like the most dangerous trend going on right now in that sector of gaming. I think more sites need to start protesting this ridiculousness or I think this will lead to publishers putting embargoes on the game until a week or so after its launched.
Click to expand...


Its only been released to the people who would have lined up outside a store though, or people who already bought it on Steam. The people on the fence or regular people wouldnt be getting it untill the morning, or later that day after work, but by then reviews would be all over the place.
 
Puppet Shadow said:
I'm waiting for review sites to forgo signing NDAs and just grabbing an early release somewhere to review.
Click to expand...
Don't hold your breath.

The "review sites" don't want to jeopardize the free games and perks publishers happily feed them (as long as the good reviews keep rolling in).
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Then logically, shouldn't they not be sending out pre-release copies at all?
Click to expand...


Maybe. Not allowing games to be reviewed until they've been out for a while just seems slimy to me and game publishers trying to eliminate any affect of criticism on their game without any of the sites writing bad stories about the publisher because of dependence on the publisher.


Its only been released to the people who would have lined up outside a store though, or people who already bought it on Steam. The people on the fence or regular people wouldnt be getting it untill the morning, or later that day after work, but by then reviews would be all over the place.
Click to expand...


It had been out in some other countries for a while.
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Embargoes are there to make sure people don't rush to release their reviews before they have proper time with the game.

They also sometimes ask for reviews to be held until the day of release so people can see the reviews and get hyped to go out right then and get the game.
Click to expand...

It also helps ensure that all reviewers have an equal chance of getting their reviews out at the same time (unless the publisher is cutting an exclusive).
 
Wthermans said:
Don't hold your breath.

The "review sites" don't want to jeopardize the free games and perks publishers happily feed them (as long as the good reviews keep rolling in).
Click to expand...

Give me a break.

It's traffic. Plain and simple. If a review isn't up on Day 1, it doesn't get read.
 
The only problem I would have with any embargo is if its something like "if you are going to score our game lower than an 8 you can't release your review until after the game's release date". Otherwise embargoes are fine for all kinds of reasons.
 
Stumpokapow said:
Your concern was that the embargo was up at 3 Eastern instead of Midnight Atlantic?
Click to expand...


My concern is that it was out in general in some parts of the world (and then America) without reviews allowed to be published. This wasn't a major issue with Modern Warfare 3, but I think this a major slippery slope and that publishers may start to have embargoes that last until days after the game is released that the media may not protest, or even be able too, too much considering situations like with MW3.
 
cj_iwakura said:
So what are they doing to do if they review it early? Sue them?
Click to expand...
Stop sending early review copies of course.

And embargoes are fair game and I have no problem with it. Besides, most people are wary about the early as hell reviews anyway.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
My concern is that it was out in general in some parts of the world (and then America) without reviews allowed to be published. This wasn't a major issue with Modern Warfare 3, but I think this a major slippery slope and that publishers may start to have embargoes that last until days after the game is released that the media may not protest, or even be able too, too much considering situations like with MW3.
Click to expand...
If you're concerned about that, then why not push for reviewers to buy the games themselves when it releases so that publishing companies have no sway over reviews?
 
This is the media's fault, not the publishers. Some bigger media outlets need to take the chance and say "We'll risk our reviews being later than the others' in exchange for strong credibility and reputation among gamers."

But at the same time, I don't blame them for not doing this. Most gamers only give a shit about the score, and 95% of the complaints against media outlets I see aren't about integrity or writing quality but some fanboyish kneejerk rant.
 
jackdoe said:
If you're concerned about that, then why not push for reviewers to buy the games themselves when it releases so that publishing companies have no sway over reviews?
Click to expand...


That would be preferable, but it's never going to happen.
 
Katbot said:
Give me a break.

It's traffic. Plain and simple. If a review isn't up on Day 1, it doesn't get read.
Click to expand...
Keep thinking little Katbot. I'm sure you'll figure it out sometime.

How, exactly, do you think these sites get the game to formulate Day 1 reviews?
 
Wthermans said:
Don't hold your breath.

The "review sites" don't want to jeopardize the free games and perks publishers happily feed them (as long as the good reviews keep rolling in).
Click to expand...

Can't review a game in 3 hours.
 
News flash: Games can take a long time to beat (see: Skyrim). How relevant is a review that goes up a week and a half after release?

Keep thinking little Katbot. I'm sure you'll figure it out sometime.

How, exactly, do you think these sites get the game to formulate Day 1 reviews?
Click to expand...

No one I have ever worked has thought twice about "perks." Frankly, it's embarrassing when PR sends along free stuff. It goes in the giveaway pile.

Traffic is what makes the world go round at every site. If you don't realize that, then you're the one thinking small.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
My concern is that it was out in general in some parts of the world (and then America) without reviews allowed to be published. This wasn't a major issue with Modern Warfare 3, but I think this a major slippery slope and that publishers may start to have embargoes that last until days after the game is released that the media may not protest, or even be able too, too much considering situations like with MW3.
Click to expand...

Not really sure publishers are either incented or in much of a position to be enforcing embargoes which last "days" after release. There wouldn't be much point as they are only ever going to be supplying advance review copies to a minority of reviewers, so reviews are going to be popping up anyway.
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Then logically, shouldn't they not be sending out pre-release copies at all?
Click to expand...

That would probably backfire, like not showing a movie to critics tends to automatically makes people think well its probably shit.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
That would be preferable, but it's never going to happen.
Click to expand...


So you want them before the game is out everywhere....but you also want them after the game comes out?


Im confused.


Seriously though, the reason reviewers listen to embargoes is so they CAN get the game early enough to review so its up on or before release day. If you want reviews that arent effected by signing NDAs, read peoples reviews on GAF.
 
Katbot said:
News flash: Games can take a long time to beat (see: Skyrim). How relevant is a review that goes up a week and a half after release?
Click to expand...


I would actually enjoy some of those, but I understand that financially it is vital to release reviews on day 1 for most sites. I just hope the media tries to push back a little against some of these practices of publishers.
 
Wthermans said:
Plenty of "review sites" do just that. :lol
Click to expand...

How about instead of just stating things you provide evidence of this massive conspiracy. One or two instances isn't good enough either. If a site wants to get a review out on time they need to play a game early. They make a deal with the publisher to get an advanced copy as long as they don't break the embargo. Film critics essentially do the same thing.

By "review sites" you mean sites set up by 15 year-olds to get free games? I don't really see the incentive for publishers to do that if the scores don't show up on metacritic.

EDIT: To answer the thread titles question though. It's not unethical. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences though.
 
It's not unethical, you exchange early access for a timed informantion release. If you don't want early access buy it on launch and review it as fast as you can.
 
Cartman86 said:
How about instead of just stating things you provide evidence of this massive conspiracy. One or two instances isn't good enough either. If a site wants to get a review out on time they need to play a game early. They make a deal with the publisher to get an advanced copy as long as they don't break the embargo. Film critics essentially do the same thing.
Click to expand...
Film critics lose access to early screenings if they have a negative review? Bullshit.
 
Wthermans said:
Plenty of "review sites" do just that. :lol
Click to expand...

Everytime I read this, I think about the time our reviewer stayed up all night to finish Portal 2 because it didn't arrive until the day before release.
 
Wthermans said:
Film critics lose access to early screenings if they have a negative review? Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Oh there are certainly instances of publishers refusing to send games after bad reviews were published (EGM with Ubisoft in 07), but this is evidence of bullshit on the part of the publishers not a breach in "journalistic ethics."
 
RaySpencer said:
So you want them before the game is out everywhere....but you also want them after the game comes out?


Im confused.


Seriously though, the reason reviewers listen to embargoes is so they CAN get the game early enough to review so its up on or before release day. If you want reviews that arent effected by signing NDAs, read peoples reviews on GAF.
Click to expand...


I want publishers either to be free from the influence of publishers or for their reviews to be able to be released before or at least when the game is released. If released afterward, game criticism loses any impact and publishers have greater control of the message.
 
I don't mind what they did with MW3, reviews on the release day. They were even good reviews, so it's not like they were hiding something. I think it makes more sense then games being reviewed up to 2 weeks before it comes out, by the time of release people will have forgotten about it.

And 'exclusive' reviews are worse
 
Cartman86 said:
Oh there are certainly instances of publishers refusing to send games after bad reviews were published (EGM with Ubisoft in 07), but this is evidence of bullshit on the part of the publishers not a breach in "journalistic ethics."
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Video game reviewers are just using whatever methods they can to increase their traffic (aka money). Can't blame them for that and if I was in the same position I'd do the same thing.

Is it unethical of publishers to restrict access to pre-release copies of their games to only the reviewers that have given positive reviews to their products in an industry where "the early bird gets the worm"? You bet your ass it is.
 
Katbot said:
Everytime I read this, I think about the time our reviewer stayed up all night to finish Portal 2 because it didn't arrive until the day before release.
Click to expand...
Just curious, what site do you represent? Because I'm fairly certain you wouldn't qualify for my example.
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Then logically, shouldn't they not be sending out pre-release copies at all?
Click to expand...

I think he's moreso concerned that publishers are/will intentionally instruct sites to withhold "bad" reviews until people have already bought the game the day it comes out, instead of before the game's released where a "bad" review could affect game sales or inflict negative press.

But I agree it's usually because the publisher wants the review out relatively close to the release to add hype. Movies/books are no different.
 
Valnen said:
Why is it "dangerous"? What harm does it inflict?
Click to expand...
Every other entertainment medium has reviews in advance with the sole exception of something being an absolute turkey that is so bad that they dare not let anyone see it early.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BioWare Is So Busy Developing Mass Effect 5 That It Doesn’t Have Time For Teasers, Says Developer
Game Dev  2 3
102
660
KanKamAndNob replied
GamingBolt: 10 Games That Showcase How Much Video Game Graphics Have Evolved
Opinion Trailer 
4
501
IbizaPocholo replied
Apparently Ed Boon is tweeting about how should a Killer Instict game be released ...
35
549
Moondoggy replied
  • Poll
Would Nintendo games have done better on PC than Sony games did?
2
68
102
FoxMcChief replied
Steam to feature how much FPS you’ll likely have on a game before buying
Platform 
27
395
Soodanim replied
Top Bottom