Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

Exactly this. I would rather play the demo and judge for myself instead of getting a ramdom internet person tell me what to buy. Most movie/game reviewers don´t match my opinions anyway. For instance i loved Suicide Squad, and it has a very low score.

Demos have all but disappeared for most games because the upside is too low. A bad demo can really hurt sales. A good demo has less impact on the upside. So you won't get them very much for a lot of games. We've seen a bit of a comeback with multiplayer betas lately.

But it's the same with early reviews. At least Bethesda thinks a negative pre release review will hurt them more then positive pre release reviews can benefit them. And that's not a good thing for consumers looking to spent their money on good games.

 

[george_us]

Seems like people are more willing to insult the faceless hordes of gamers rather than hold the company accountable to being a bit more transparent. Sad to see.

It's more about recognizing the fact that publishers are always going to do what's in their best interests and gamers should react accordingly. Why should publishers be more transparent if it doesn't affect their bottom line? We can talk about trust all we want but if gamers aren't willing to show some self-control and wait until they have the appropriate amount of information to purchase a game, why shouldn't publishers take advantage? Sure it's scummy but publishers don't give a fuck. Bethesda doesn't care if you think they're a terrible company when Fallout 4 is too busy breaking day one records.

I mean, it might sound reductionist but the best way to combat this really is to stop preordering games. There's little to no benefit for gamers anymore.

 

[Wulfram]

Well, it's not like you're going to read just one of them. A game is liable to have a dozen or so reviews available the day it comes out.

If everyone says the game is good, then it's probably a safe bet.

If you want the consensus view, look at the metacritic score. Reviews only give you individual opinions. But since individual opinions are individual, their ability to project whether you will like the game is extremely limited. And you won't give appropriate weight to these individual opinions when making your decisions, because your weightings will be distorted by things such as the ability of the writer to write eloquently, entertainingly and persuasively.

This too.

I don't mean misleading in the sense of false, I mean it will lead you to make a worse decision than you would otherwise.

Reading bullet point summaries of reviews isn't a bad idea, though. It can give you additional information while limiting contamination.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If you want the consensus view, look at the metacritic score. Reviews only give you individual opinions. But since individual opinions are individual, their ability to project whether you will like the game is extremely limited. And you won't give appropriate weight to these individual opinions when making your decisions, because your weightings will be distorted by things such as the ability of the writer to write eloquently, entertainingly and persuasively.



I don't mean misleading in the sense of false, I mean it will lead you to make a worse decision than you would otherwise.

Reading bullet point summaries of reviews isn't a bad idea, though. It can give you additional information while limiting contamination.

How is reading a review in any way going to have you make a worse decision? This makes no sense. You are getting more information about the game, so you can make a better decision.

Of course it is an individual opinion. That is why you look at multiple and see if their either is a consensus or you go with the ones you trust.

I don't really know what you are looking for otherwise. You can't expect reviews to be a 100% in line with your personal preference and talk only about the things you want. But they serve as a way to give the reader an explanation why the writer thinks a game is good or bad. You'll have to decide for yourself if you think his or her arguments are well made or not after that.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

If you want the consensus view, look at the metacritic score. Reviews only give you individual opinions. But since individual opinions are individual, their ability to project whether you will like the game is extremely limited. And you won't give appropriate weight to these individual opinions when making your decisions, because your weightings will be distorted by things such as the ability of the writer to write eloquently, entertainingly and persuasively.

You make it sound like a bad thing.

I don't mean misleading in the sense of false, I mean it will lead you to make a worse decision than you would otherwise.

Reading bullet point summaries of reviews isn't a bad idea, though. It can give you additional information while limiting contamination.

That's an awfully strong word.

Hmm...well. I'm guessing that reviews such as this one would be perfect for you then.

 

[RoboticWater]

It's more about recognizing the fact that publishers are always going to do what's in their best interests and gamers should react accordingly. Why should publishers be more transparent if it doesn't affect their bottom line? We can talk about trust all we want but if gamers aren't willing to show some self-control and wait until they have the appropriate amount of information to purchase a game, why shouldn't publishers take advantage? Sure it's scummy but publishers don't give a fuck. Bethesda doesn't care if you think they're a terrible company when Fallout 4 is too busy breaking day one records.

I mean, it might sound reductionist but the best way to combat this really is to stop preordering games. There's little to no benefit for gamers anymore.

But we can hold a corporation accountable for their actions. That's simply not possible with an amorphous mass of people.

It should be plainly obvious how useless the statement "well everyone should just stop pre-ordering" is. People against pre-orders don't have the resources to fund massive hype campaigns nor the position to restrict information to their benefit. So if we can't prevent people from buying into the negative culture, we should try to stop the people who are making it. We certainly shouldn't be blaming the victims of bad business practice.

Seriously, why shouldn't we expect businesses to conform to some base level of ethics? Is it OK now for businesses to be ruthless and anti-consumer because that's just what they do? I can understand wanting to promote a free market, but incidentally, deliberately under-informed consumers does not make for a positive free market.

 

[More_Badass]

If you want the consensus view, look at the metacritic score. Reviews only give you individual opinions. But since individual opinions are individual, their ability to project whether you will like the game is extremely limited. And you won't give appropriate weight to these individual opinions when making your decisions, because your weightings will be distorted by things such as the ability of the writer to write eloquently, entertainingly and persuasively.



I don't mean misleading in the sense of false, I mean it will lead you to make a worse decision than you would otherwise.

Reading bullet point summaries of reviews isn't a bad idea, though. It can give you additional information while limiting contamination.

Wait...wait, wait, wait

Are you seriously insinuating the ability to write well is a bad thing? That horrible contamination of a well-written article!

 

[Calm waterfall]

Demos have all but disappeared for most games because the upside is too low. A bad demo can really hurt sales. A good demo has less impact on the upside. So you won't get them very much for a lot of games. We've seen a bit of a comeback with multiplayer betas lately.

But it's the same with early reviews. At least Bethesda thinks a negative pre release review will hurt them more then positive pre release reviews can benefit them. And that's not a good thing for consumers looking to spent their money on good games.

Lack of info is bad for customers, not arguing otherwise, but what kind of info are we talking about? This info you get from a reviewer is a subjective opinion, unless it is a technical issue. It rarely gives the full picture about a game. I trust Angry Joe more than any reviewer but that does not mean that i always agree with him, or my taste and his are similar.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Lack of info is bad for customers, not arguing otherwise, but what kind of info are we talking about? This info you get from a reviewer is a subjective opinion, unless it is a technical issue. It rarely gives the full picture about a game. I trust Angry Joe more than any reviewer but that does not mean that i always agree with him, or my taste and his are similar.

The info a review normally gives. Are there issues with the game, is it well made, is it good value for your money, etc. Those are good things to know before release if you either have a pre order already you can then still cancel or are looking forward to getting the game. Or are you arguing that reviews hold no value at all?

I feel like I am now just arguing that reviews hold value. That isn't even up to discussion is it? And Angry Joe is just as much a reviewer as any other. You trust him. Some people trust other people and websites.

 

[Calm waterfall]

The info a review normally gives. Are there issues with the game, is it well made, is it good value for your money, etc. Those are good things to know before release if you either have a pre order already you can then still cancel or are looking forward to getting the game. Or are you arguing that reviews hold no value at all?

Reviews are worthless because they are subjective, and pre-order is a part of the disease. Don´t buy the game before it releases. It´s that easy. Wait for word of mouth and let´s play.

Bethesda is shit for making selective review outlets, but those outlets are as implicit as Bethesda as far as i am concerned, because they release reviews even though other websites can´t because they are blacklisted. Do you at least agree that white listed websites are implicit in this kind of behavior?

I feel like I am now just arguing that reviews hold value. That isn't even up to discussion is it? And Angry Joe is just as much a reviewer as any other. You trust him. Some people trust other people and websites.

They hold value for publishers more than consumers. Publishers give bonuses based on good reviews, and market it as such. Do i really bring all the games that reviewed very favorably despite huge technical and other issues because they are a blockbusters? Does that mean that these reviews should not be taken into account? Batman Arkham knight PC is 70% om metacritic despite all the technical issues. Does that make the reviewers untrustworthy? You bet. Angry Joe buys his own game. He is not beholden to publishers like gaming media. Publishers have no power over him, unlike gaming media.

 

[Armaros]

Reviews are worthless because they are subjective, and pre-order is a part of the disease. Don´t buy the game before it releases. It´s that easy. Wait for word of mouth and let´s play.

Bethesda is shit for making selective review outlets, but those outlets are as implicit as Bethesda as far as i am concerned, because they release reviews even though other websites can´t because they are blacklisted. Do you at least agree that white listed websites are implicit in this kind of behavior?

Reviews by defitnion are subjectives. A lets play is subjective, twitch streams, all of it.

 

[jmood88]

But we can hold a corporation accountable for their actions. That's simply not possible with an amorphous mass of people.

It should be plainly obvious how useless the statement "well everyone should just stop pre-ordering" is. People against pre-orders don't have the resources to fund massive hype campaigns nor the position to restrict information to their benefit. So if we can't prevent people from buying into the negative culture, we should try to stop the people who are making it. We certainly shouldn't be blaming the victims of bad business practice.

Seriously, why shouldn't we expect businesses to conform to some base level of ethics? Is it OK now for businesses to be ruthless and anti-consumer because that's just what they do? I can understand wanting to promote a free market, but incidentally, deliberately under-informed consumers does not make for a positive free market.

No one is a victim here. It's shitty for publishers to block reviews but too many people act as if the games disappear if they aren't bought on the day of release. Publishers do stuff this because they can get away with it with no repercussions. No one is forced to buy any game before having information on it that doesn't come from the developer, so the assertion that consumers are victims and are unfairly being blamed is ridiculous.

 

[More_Badass]

Reviews are worthless because they are subjective, and pre-order is a part of the disease. Don´t buy the game before it releases. It´s that easy. Wait for word of mouth and let´s play.

Bethesda is shit for making selective review outlets, but those outlets are as implicit as Bethesda as far as i am concerned, because they release reviews even though other websites can´t because they are blacklisted. Do you at least agree that white listed websites are implicit in this kind of behavior?

How is a subjective opinion worthless? Have you ever asked a friend how they liked a movie, or watched/played something because someone you know said they enjoyed it?

Word of mouth is subjective too. Or you don't believe so?

And a review can offer a full impression of a game while watching let's play only presents you with an isolated contextless sliver

 

[ClosingADoor]

Reviews are worthless because they are subjective, and pre-order is a part of the disease. Don´t buy the game before it releases. It´s that easy. Wait for word of mouth and let´s play.

Bethesda is shit for making selective review outlets, but those outlets are as implicit as Bethesda as far as i am concerned, because they release reviews even though other websites can´t because they are blacklisted. Do you at least agree that white listed websites are implicit in this kind of behavior?

Everything regarding things like videogames, movies, music and other art is subjective. Is any discussion about movies now worthless? Is discussion about paintings worthless?

Word of mouth is the definition of subjective. Let's Plays are subjective, since the one playing shows you how he plays, and how he plays a game is subjective. Let's say he plays GTA. He could play it in a totally different way from what I would find fun.

What kind of review are you expecting that does not have subjective elements? I thought we were over this 'reviews need to be objective' phase in games. I'm kind of surprised some people still seem to think that is possible and actually want a fact sheet instead of a review.

 

[Calm waterfall]

Reviews by defitnion are subjectives. A lets play is subjective, twitch streams, all of it.

With let´s play i see if i like the game different levels and gameplay mechanics with my eyes, regardless of what the commentator says. So no let´s play is a great tool to know which game i want.

 

[Armaros]

With let´s play i see if i like the game different levels and gameplay mechanics with my eyes, regardless of what the commentator says. So no let´s play is a great tool to know which game i want.

And how they play the game itself is subjective. Unless you expect to play exactly like the lets player?

What happens if they missed an entire game mechanic?

 

[flaxknuckles]

Pretty sure people like Totalbiscuit are THE people that are being courted. Extremely popular youtubers like him are what they are going after.

Hell, barely relevant youtubers seem to be courted by them heavily these days. Will see constant preview footage from people that have like 1000 views or something in addition to the big hitters.

I saw a dude yesterday with like a hundred views (after a few days too) and barely any subscribers who got flown out to play Watch Dogs 2. I was like damn where my webcam at?

 

[ClosingADoor]

With let´s play i see if i like the game different levels and gameplay mechanics with my eyes, regardless of what the commentator says. So no let´s play is a great tool to know which game i want.

It's a great tool. But it's still subjective. Just like reviews and streams and everything else regarding video games. It's an interactive medium, so it will be different for everyone playing it. That does not mean the different ways to show or discuss the game are worthless.

I saw a dude yesterday with like a hundred views (after a few days too) and barely any subscribers who got flown out to play Watch Dogs 2. I was like damn where my webcam at?

It's strange as hell. But might be they have a larger Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, whatever following.

 

[george_us]

But we can hold a corporation accountable for their actions. That's simply not possible with an amorphous mass of people.

Hold them accountable how though? By complaining? Gamers have been complaining about DLC for almost a decade to no avail.

It should be plainly obvious how useless the statement "well everyone should just stop pre-ordering" is. People against pre-orders don't have the resources to fund massive hype campaigns nor the position to restrict information to their benefit. So if we can't prevent people from buying into the negative culture, we should try to stop the people who are making it. We certainly shouldn't be blaming the victims of bad business practice.

What incentive is there for publishers to stop this practice if their pockets continue to fatten? Seriously, if you were the CEO of a large company making money hand over fist and you stood to make even more by withholding information because your audience lacked willpower as whole, why the hell wouldn't you do it?

Seriously, why shouldn't we expect businesses to conform to some base level of ethics? Is it OK now for businesses to be ruthless and anti-consumer because that's just what they do? I can understand wanting to promote a free market, but incidentally, deliberately under-informed consumers does not make for a positive free market.

Because businesses have shown time and time again they'll forgo ethics in favor of making a buck in spite of gamer protests. Gamers complained to high heaven about DLC, microtransactions, and F2P yet those business models continue making publishers money hand over fist. At some point publishers come to the conclusion that, gamers at large, either have no real problems with supposedly unethical business practices or they lack the willpower to simply not purchase the product.

 

[Calm waterfall]

I feel like I am now just arguing that reviews hold value. That isn't even up to discussion is it? And Angry Joe is just as much a reviewer as any other. You trust him. Some people trust other people and websites.

They hold value for publishers more than consumers. Publishers give bonuses based on good reviews, and market it as such. Do i really bring all the games that reviewed very favorably despite huge technical and other issues because they are a blockbusters? Does that mean that these reviews should not be taken into account? Batman Arkham knight PC is 70% om metacritic despite all the technical issues. Does that make the reviewers untrustworthy? You bet. Angry Joe buys his own game. He is not beholden to publishers like gaming media. Publishers have no power over him, unlike gaming media.

How is a subjective opinion worthless? Have you ever asked a friend how they liked a movie, or watched/played something because someone you know said they enjoyed it?

Word of mouth is subjective too. Or you don't believe so?

And a review can offer a full impression of a game while watching let's play only presents you with an isolated contextless sliver

Is this a real question? I know my friend and trust him. I can´t say the same about reviewers. Word of mouth even though it is subjective it´s very different. First of all the debate about the quality of the game helps with the reflection over buying a game. Most reviewer does not discuss the game from every angle. There´s barely any nuance.

Everything regarding things like videogames, movies, music and other art is subjective. Is any discussion about movies now worthless? Is discussion about paintings worthless?

Word of mouth is the definition of subjective. Let's Plays are subjective, since the one playing shows you how he plays, and how he plays a game is subjective. Let's say he plays GTA. He could play it in a totally different way from what I would find fun.

What kind of review are you expecting that does not have subjective elements? I thought we were over this 'reviews need to be objective' phase in games. I'm kind of surprised some people still seem to think that is possible and actually want a fact sheet instead of a review.

That was obvious.

I don´t expect reviews to not have subjective elements. I just don´t make buying decisions based on them, ever. I would rather play the game myself or hear about it from a close friend, or watch youtube let´s play, then i know if i want to buy it or not.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

The argument will never be won by complaining to a corporation interested in it's profit margins about how people are offended by their business practices if people keep buying in. A corporation absolutely has the right to set a street date and control the distribution of its intellectual property. If you want such business practices to change, you have two options;

A) Convince the populous at large to stop encouraging those practices by not buying the game.

B) Convince the corporations by convincing them they could be making more money otherwise.

 

[RoboticWater]

No one is a victim here. It's shitty for publishers to block reviews but too many people act as if the games disappear if they aren't bought on the day of release. Publishers do stuff this because they can get away with it with no repercussions. No one is forced to buy any game before having information on it that doesn't come from the developer, so the assertion that consumers are victims and are unfairly being blamed is ridiculous.

Of course, people don't even have to buy games at all, but that's not a thing we can control. People aren't perfectly logical beings who can and will do everything in their power to do what's best for themselves. But even then, it's not like people are even getting a fair shake. Game companies are restricting and distorting information, creating massive emotionally manipulative marketing campaigns, and creating positive narratives leading up to the release of their game.

"Publishers do stuff this because they can get away with it with no repercussions." Then why let them get away with it? Because people are just being people? What kind of sentiment is that? I believe that what companies are doing is ethically wrong. We should stop that.

You can try stopping shitty practice by convincing every single gamer that they should be more logical when it comes to purchasing games or you can try to combat the people actually committing the bad practice.

 

[jmood88]

Of course, people don't even have to buy games at all, but that's not a thing we can control. People aren't perfectly logical beings who can and will do everything in their power to do what's best for themselves. But even then, it's not like people are even getting a fair shake. Game companies are restricting and distorting information, creating massive emotionally manipulative marketing campaigns, and creating positive narratives leading up to the release of their game.

"Publishers do stuff this because they can get away with it with no repercussions." Then why let them get away with it? Because people are just being people? What kind of sentiment is that? I believe that what companies are doing is ethically wrong. We should stop that.

What are you talking about? You said that people were blaming the "victims" when they said to stop preordering games, which is the only way you can actually show them that you disagree with what they're doing.

You can try stopping shitty practice by convincing every single gamer that they should be more logical when it comes to purchasing games or you can try to combat the people actually committing the bad practice.

And as someone else asked, how do you do that? We've seen time and time again that gamers will whine and complain over business practices, then buy the game anyway. There is no other way to change things but for people to stop giving money to companies who do things they don't like.

 

[Bolivar687]

I get that having less information out there is never a good thing but I understand publishers no longer taking chances on reviews anymore. The press has notably piled on a couple high profile games in recent years to push a narrative more interesting than the game itself. These are also for-profit corporations, in a dying medium amidst emergent technology. Critical consensus might actually undermine the prerelease content we can already find on our own. With Civ V vanilla, Diablo III launch, Sim City, Mass Effect 3 and Titanfall, the critical and audience consensus were clearly out of sync. The press was practically on their knees, clutching at our clothes, pleading with us to buy Titanfall. At the Video Game Awards, Joel McHale exposed that Geoff Keighley was contractually not allowed to talk about any games in between segments except for Titanfall.

Everyone was worried about DOOM and look what happened ed. If they pull it off again with Dishonored, their critics really have no leg to stand on.

 

[RoboticWater]

Hold them accountable how though? By complaining? Gamers have been complaining about DLC for almost a decade to no avail.

Great, let's do nothing. Clearly, the single greatest way of getting something done. Even better, let's try to convince others who want to do something that they're dumb and useless.

What incentive is there for publishers to stop this practice if their pockets continue to fatten? Seriously, if you were the CEO of a large company making money hand over fist and you stood to make even more by withholding information because your audience lacked willpower as whole, why the hell wouldn't you do it?

This isn't an argument. It's stating the obvious and presenting it like it's a solution. We all know corporations will do whatever they can to get money. Duh. How does that stop bad practice? Are you saying we should just accept it?

Because businesses have shown time and time again they'll forgo ethics in favor of making a buck in spite of gamer protests. Gamers complained to high heaven about DLC, microtransactions, and F2P yet those business models continue making publishers money hand over fist. At some point publishers come to the conclusion that, gamers at large, either have no real problems with supposedly unethical business practices or they lack the willpower to simply not purchase the product.

Then maybe we, the informed but vocal minority should try to be more vocally against bad practice. Maybe we try to get government involvement? Maybe we try to form our own interest group to throw massive piles of cash at dismantling bad marketing practice? Hell, I don't know if any of those will work, but I'm not going sit there and say "that's how it is." At the very least, I'll sit by and say that it's terrible.

If you legitimately dislike bad business practices, the absolute least you can do is cease to defend the status-quo. I don't know how you can be negative about DLC, micro-transactions, and F2P while in the same breath give excuses for the poor little multimillion dollar corporations. You do realize that those practices succeeded in part because informed gamers use the same defeatist rhetoric every time shit like this gets pulled? You're only helping perpetuate that which you despise by deliberately trying to acclimatize other informed gamers to what you perceive to be an unfixable reality.

 

[ClosingADoor]

They hold value for publishers more than consumers. Publishers give bonuses based on good reviews, and market it as such. Do i really bring all the games that reviewed very favorably despite huge technical and other issues because they are a blockbusters? Does that mean that these reviews should not be taken into account? Batman Arkham knight PC is 70% om metacritic despite all the technical issues. Does that make the reviewers untrustworthy? You bet. Angry Joe buys his own game. He is not beholden to publishers like gaming media. Publishers have no power over him, unlike gaming media.


Is this a real question? I know my friend and trust him. I can´t say the same about reviewers. Word of mouth even though it is subjective it´s very different. First of all the debate about the quality of the game helps with the reflection over buying a game. Most reviewer does not discuss the game from every angle. There´s barely any nuance.


That was obvious.

I don´t expect reviews to not have subjective elements. I just don´t make buying decisions based on them, ever. I would rather play the game myself or hear about it from a close friend, or watch youtube let´s play, then i know if i want to buy it or not.

So you are just arguing your personal preference then? You do see the value of reviews and that people do (in part) base their purchase on them right?

And please, don't get me started on how Angry Joe or whoever is somehow more trustworthy then other reviewers. That is just your personal opinion. You really think that a reviewer for IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, etc is untrustworthy because he doesn't buy his own games? Really now?

And not beholden to publishers... I got a bridge to sell you if you think Youtubers are more trustworthy when it comes to interaction with publishers then media organizations. Angry Joe seems like a good guy, don't know him personally, but there are a ton of Youtubers out there who get the ad money from the same sources the older gaming media get them, and they are just as dependent on that as any other outlet. You think these major channels play all the games for free on their Let's Plays? No. They are ad deals.

I get that having less information out there is never a good thing but I understand publishers no longer taking chances on reviews anymore. The press has notably piled on a couple high profile games in recent years to push a narrative more interesting than the game itself. These are also for-profit corporations, in a dying medium amidst emergent technology. Critical consensus might actually undermine the prerelease content we can already find on our own. With Civ V vanilla, Diablo III launch, Sim City, Mass Effect 3 and Titanfall, the critical and audience consensus were clearly out of sync. The press was practically on their knees, clutching at our clothes, pleading with us to buy Titanfall. At the Video Game Awards, Joel McHale exposed that Geoff Keighley was contractually not allowed to talk about any games in between segments except for Titanfall.

Everyone was worried about DOOM and look what happened ed. If they pull it off again with Dishonored, their critics really have no leg to stand on.

Please point me to the games where the press has piled on in a negative way to push a narrative that publishers can't take the "risk"? These things simply don't happen.

And Keighley hosts shows. That involved contracts and promotion. The dude does not do game reviews as far as I know. Did he review Titanfall? They are separate things. He's running his own company I think, doing shows and stuff, not reviewing games.

 

[ebullientprism]

Honestly, at some point consumers are gonna have to take the blame here. I absolutely do no blame any publisher for trying this.

If you are still pre ordering a game because you cant wait another 2-3 days to play it and then it turns out there are massive issues with the game, there is only one person at fault in this scenario. The job of a publisher/developer is to sell their game. No one holds a gun to your head. You have the option of waiting to see what the game is like but if you chose to throw your money down sight unseen then, well, the phrase "a fool and his money are soon parted" comes to mind.

Gamers have seen, time after time, game after game, how broken games can be. Or how misleading the marketing is. Yet like a fucking idiot you chose to put your money down anyway.

 

[Kintaro]

Honestly, at some point consumers are gonna have to take the blame here. I absolutely do no blame any publisher for trying this.

If you are still pre ordering a game because you cant wait another 2-3 days to play it and then it turns out there are massive issues with the game, there is only one person at fault in this scenario. The job of a publisher/developer is to sell their game. No one holds a gun to your head. You have the option of waiting to see what the game is like but if you chose to throw your money down sight unseen then, well, the phrase "a fool and his money are soon parted" comes to mind.

Gamers have seen, time after time, game after game, how broken games can be. Or how misleading the marketing is. Yet like a fucking idiot you chose to put your money down anyway.

Um, if there are issues with the game, it certainly IS NOT the consumer's fault. You can say "You should have waited." But issues with a product for sale are not the consumer's fault.

 

[Bolivar687]

I get that having less information out there is never a good thing but I understand publishers no longer taking chances on reviews anymore. The press has notably piled on a couple high profile games in recent years to push a narrative more interesting than the game itself. These are also for-profit corporations, in a dying medium amidst emergent technology. Critical consensus might actually undermine the prerelease content we can already find on our own. With Civ V vanilla, Diablo III launch, Sim City, Mass Effect 3 and Titanfall, the critical and audience consensus were clearly out of sync. The press was practically on their knees, clutching at our clothes, pleading with us to buy Titanfall. At the Video Game Awards, Joel McHale exposed that Geoff Keighley was contractually not allowed to talk about any games in between segments except for Titanfall.

Everyone was worried about DOOM and look what happened ed. If they pull it off again with Dishonored, their critics really have no leg to stand on.

 

[Kalamoj]

This 'same time experience' would be honest if they just cease to send any review copies/codes.
The embargo is just bs.

 

[ebullientprism]

Um, if there are issues with the game, it certainly IS NOT the consumer's fault. You can say "You should have waited." But issues with a product for sale are not the consumer's fault.

In this scenario? It absolutely is the consumers fault.

If you put your money down without ever finding out the condition of what you are buying then you are the only person to blame.

You have the option of being an informed consumer. You chose to NOT take it. Your fault. All of it.

 

[RoboticWater]

What are you talking about? You said that people were blaming the "victims" when they said to stop preordering games, which is the only way you can actually show them that you disagree with what they're doing.

What? I said that it's blaming the victims when you say: "it's the customer's fault for these bad practices; they're the ones letting it happen." Obviously, we should try to convince people not to pre-order, but I don't believe there's a way to actually convince the majority of gamers to do that. So what I say is blame those responsible for unethical business practice, and hold them responsible.

We can and should arm gamers mentally against hype campaigns and pre-order culture, but gamer's aren't the ones maliciously preying on misinformation.

And as someone else asked, how do you do that? We've seen time and time again that gamers will whine and complain over business practices, then buy the game anyway. There is no other way to change things but for people to stop giving money to companies who do things they don't like.

You start by not giving excuses to corporations. You then realize we have a government, and we could possibly leverage that avenue. I don't have a solution for you. I'm sorry that there aren't perfect MacGuffins in the universe that'll just solve our problems. If there were, I could just tell you we needed the scepter of truth to save the day, but I can't. The real solution is a drawn out process of politics, information dissemination, litigation, and business that might gradually shift public perception by first hindering those who would distort it to their advantage. There is no one simple way to the solution, but I can guarantee you that expecting everyone to just up and become immune to hype won't work.

Seriously, how do you expect to convince people to "stop giving money to companies who do things they don't like." You keep presenting that like it's actually a solution, yet demand something more concrete from me. How would you change everyone's mind? More importantly, how do you think giving excuses for ruthless corporate behavior will change anyone's mind for the better?

 

[ClosingADoor]

In this scenario? It absolutely is the consumers fault.

If you put your money down without ever finding out the condition of what you are buying then you are the only person to blame.

You have the option of being an informed consumer. You chose to NOT take it. Your fault. All of it.

I don't think this is true. If you just don't like or enjoy the game, it's not the companies fault. If the company delivers a broken piece of software, it most definitely is.

If I buy any product I expect it to work. I don't expect to always enjoy it, but I do expect it to work as advertised. Which for video games would mean that it is playable and has no game breaking stuff in it.

 

[ebullientprism]

I don't think this is true. If you just don't like or enjoy the game, it's not the companies fault. If the company delivers a broken piece of software, it most definitely is.

If I buy any product I expect it to work. I don't expect to always enjoy it, but I do expect it to work as advertised. Which for video games would mean that it is playable and has no game breaking stuff in it.

Would you buy from ebay from a different country with no pictures of the product and the option to send the money to the seller via Western Union first?

Thats basically a pre order.

If you know from experience (yours or others) that you are about to engage in a highly risky deal and chose to go forward anyway then you gotta take the blame. Even more so when you know for a fact that you have the option of making the same deal, almost entirely risk free, in 3 days time.

You chose instant gratification over common sense. I know its not a nice thing to say but you are a fucking idiot if you pre order.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Would you buy from ebay from a different country with no pictures of the product and the option to send the money to the seller via Western Union first?

Thats basically a pre order.

If you know from experience (yours or others) that you are about to engage in a highly risky deal and chose to go forward anyway then you gotta take the blame. Even more so when you know for a fact that you have the option of making the same deal, almost entirely risk free, in 3 days time.

You chose instant gratification over common sense. I know its not a nice thing to say but you are a fucking idiot if you pre order.

I don't pre order and would not advise people to do it. But it is not the buyers fault if the game is broken also, that is on the company pushing the game on the market.

If you buy the new iPhone, you expect it to work. If it crashes constantly that is Apples fault, not yours.

 

[ebullientprism]

I don't pre order and would not advise people to do it. But it is not the buyers fault if the game is broken also, that is on the company pushing the game on the market.

If you buy the new iPhone, you expect it to work. If it crashes constantly that is Apples fault, not yours.

Thats not the same thing TBH. Purchasing an iphone is more or less a risk free deal. The number of people that face issues are a very small percentage. Historically speaking you know that. The risk that you take is extremely low.

This industry on the other hand, pushes out unfinished buggy products month after month. As a consumer you know this and have seen this happen.

An apples to oranges comparison.

Edit I feel like we are talking around in circles, lets just agree to disagree.

 

[test_account]

A launch day review might not do anything for the person who preordered the game, but that person likely wouldn't be swayed regardless. It's the person walking into a shop to buy the game day one or on launch weekend who really suffers.

Why buy the game at launch day/week if he/she knows that they might suffer?

 

[KahooTs]

Gaming media can not be trusted. They've failed countless times when they might have served the public's interest. Look at Skyrim PS3, when the game goes to reviewers and no-one says it's fucking crippled, I assume it's not. By them not mentioning game breaking issues it becomes tacit advice that none exist. The average consumer for that product would have been better served by having had the regular market shape the impressions of that game.

They've proven no true warning against broken products, reducing their influence is just like reducing a PR arm.

 

[Wulfram]

You make it sound like a bad thing.

Its a bad thing for the reader if you're looking to make the best possible purchase decision. Its a good thing if you're reading the review for entertainment. Which is why I suggest reading reviews after you have decided to purchase the game, if not after you have actually played.

Hmm...well. I'm guessing that reviews such as this one would be perfect for you then.

Well, if you take out the snarky stating of the obvious that's basically an encyclopedia entry, which can be a pretty useful source of information. But it misses the virtue of looking at review bullet points, which is not that they're objective - they certainly aren't - but that they convey opinions with the minimum of style and presentation.

 

[Eusis]

To me as a reader of reviews, the effect is identical.

No.

This means that they'd have to rush to play through the game to actually be day 1 or more likely day 2 or day 3, whereas if they were given review copies with release date embargoes they'd have a finished review in time to play the game.

There CAN be cases for this (full on MP, day one patches, etc) but it's still really lame to see happen.

 

[More_Badass]

Its a bad thing for the reader if you're looking to make the best possible purchase decision. Its a good thing if you're reading the review for entertainment. Which is why I suggest reading reviews after you have decided to purchase the game, if not after you have actually played.

A well-written review can only offer entertainment and not well-presented detailed impressions that can help someone make that best possible purchase decision?

How is eloquent and entertaining writing a bad thing again?

 

[Chobel]

And it gets worse https://twitter.com/JeremyPenter/status/791747826497630208

Man. This morning has been a bit disheartening. 6 other pubs contacted me and are moving to reviews being AFTER games release..

 

[Wulfram]

A well-written review can only offer entertainment and not well-presented detailed impressions that can help someone make that best possible purchase decision?

How is eloquent and entertaining writing a bad thing again?

Because it encourages you to give too much weight to the opinions of an individual with those skills.

 

[More_Badass]

Because it encourages you to give too much weight to the opinions of an individual with those skills.

I better not pay any mind to Jonathan Blow, Rami Ismail, Frictional's Thomas Grip, or other developers with praised talent, skill, and knowledge about their field when they recommend and discuss games on Twitter

But seriously, do you realize how crazy it is to say the ability to write well and eloquently about something is a negative thing? We should be begging for more detailed, thoughtful, eloquent writing about games, much like how film and literature have a higher level of discussion and analysis, than bashing the horrible "contamination" of good writing

 

[Plywood]

And it gets worse https://twitter.com/JeremyPenter/status/791747826497630208

All the while people will continue defending these games and as a result this practice.

 

[Seronei]

And it gets worse https://twitter.com/JeremyPenter/status/791747826497630208

Collusion? Did they just decide this together so they can do this without risking being boycotted by press entirely? If many companies decide together to do this there's no risk since the gaming press can't exactly boycott all big gaming companies, they'd just destroy themselves.

 

[diamount]

Situation hasn't changed at all. They even say wait until the reviews are out if you are on the fence, complete non-issue as always. The only criticism I see of this are coming from the games reviewers themselves. It's always going to be a monetary concern for them.

All the while people will continue defending these games and as a result this practice.

WTF are you even talking about?

 

[Remmy2112]

Collusion? Did they just decide this together so they can do this without risking being boycotted by press entirely? If many companies decide together to do this there's no risk since the gaming press can't exactly boycott all big gaming companies, they'd just destroy themselves.

Collusion, or all of these companies had these ideas individually but none of them were willing to pull the trigger first and get the bad press heaped on themselves, especially if their rivals would take advantage.

Bethesda walked into the mine field and, so far at least, has not been blown up. Now they have cover to try it themselves.

 

[Shengar]

How is a subjective opinion worthless? Have you ever asked a friend how they liked a movie, or watched/played something because someone you know said they enjoyed it?

Word of mouth is subjective too. Or you don't believe so?

And a review can offer a full impression of a game while watching let's play only presents you with an isolated contextless sliver

One thing that I'm disappointed in GAF is how often these dismissal if subjectivity and opinion appears in many thread. I couldn't fathom why could anyone that join a discussion forun did not see the value of subjectivity and opinion of others whereas the main purpose of it is to exchange these two. It's mind boggling how many people here wished there should no discussion in this forum.

Subjective and opinion dismissal is not only a good way to shut down discussion, but also critical thinking capabilities as well.

A well-written review can only offer entertainment and not well-presented detailed impressions that can help someone make that best possible purchase decision?

How is eloquent and entertaining writing a bad thing again?

It's a bad thing because well written critics might gave him buyer's remorse or make him feels on the wrong. There's nothing a way around on what he said beside this. Truly an anti-intellectualism at best that masked as pro-consumerism and individualism.

 

[Militaratus]

I can't watch the video yet, so maybe my questions are already answered:

Say CE Owners able to play earlier is now a common thing, is a launch day embargo still valid till the regular version is released? Or does the launch day embargo end the moment CE owners get to play?

Is there a legal maximum length between CE Early Play and Release Day? If yes, is it legal to delay the Release beyond that limit citing Technical Difficulties while CE Owners can still play just fine?

Are publishers legally obligated to end the embargo on Release Day at the latest or are they allowed to extend the embargo well beyond that?

Because say, if this is a Black Mirror episode and the game has a launch day embargo that doesn't lift on the CE Early Play, but the Release Day keeps getting pushed back. What's the publisher' legal power to take down any review since technically it's still under embargo?