Bethesda's anti-consumer review policy comes as no surprise

Last night, Bethesda laid clear its policy on media reviews from Dishonored 2 onwards. In a short statement on its official site from global content lead lead Gary Steinman - himself a former games journalist - Bethesda announced that you won't see any reviews before the launch of its games because it will continue to send out code to publications a day before release.

[Phoenix76]

While I don't agree with this practice, another way of looking at this is that "reviewer's" will be able to do a review on a "day one patched" game, which the consumer will be buying rather than reviewing a pre day one Patched game which normally is more buggy and still unbalanced in place such weapons and enemy's. Just saying.

[Red_Renegade]

and if people want to read reviews before buying, they still can. not sure why some people like bruce think that's changed.

[pompombrum]

Well in an ideal world, such a policy would cost them consumer confidence and in turn effect their preorder numbers but in reality it probably won't change anything.

[Tussin187]

I wonder how we survived before people reviewed games over the Internet? People act as if they can't wait for reviews if it bothers them so much. No one is forcing you to buy any games. Do we all live in the same world?

Another day and something else to complain about. I understand that everyone has their opinion and that's fine but gamers like to make everything seem like it's the end of the world. Again, who is forcing you to buy any game before those precious reviews come out? Hell, most of the time people crap on reviews anyways especially if a site gives a game a score you don't believe it should have gotten.

Personally, I don't buy many games day 1 anyways because gaming is expensive. And I'm definitely not going to complain if I would have to wait a day or two for a review. But I do understand in today's society how people with no patience can be upset. It's more of the period we live in then the actual act itself.

[Phoenix76]

@tussin: I wonder how we survived before people reviewed games over the Internet?

We had to rely on these things that were known as gaming magazine's. Expensive booklets that would often come with a free gift (usually in the form of a disk or CD) and almost always hit the newsagents shelves just after the game had been released. Crazy times, I know /s 😀

[Tussin187]

Completely agree with your comment but not every game back then came with a demo. People read articles from different magazines and formed an opinion or maybe discussed it with their friends. Now we have the internet where strangers argue about what you spent your money on. Like it's coming out of their pocket. The times we live in now is a blessing and a curse. We have multiplayer betas all the time and people still judge the game like it's a final release.

But hey, I have that old school way of thinking about things. Oh well, but I do know that it's just going to get worse.

[CrimsonWing69]

I commend Bethesda. I've been talking about how busted the review process has become and the amount of influence they have on a consumer that's "unsure" about the product. Everyone and their mother says, "Oh reviews are nothing more than an opinion," and to that I say no, an opinion is an opinion.

A review is a subject matter expert's commentary based directly on actual user experience that is grounded in fact, with analyzation, and descriptive information to provide someone the information needed in order to make an informed decision on purchasing said item regardless of whether the consumer and the reviewer share the same interest. Opinion is injected within the review to give personal reflection in order to give a more personal insight that the user may or may not experience.

For example, a game may be objectively good but the reviewer may have been bored to tears playing it. This is important for a consumer that does not get bored with the genre of game knowing the facts that the game is good, but it's also important for someone who is not familiar with the genre yet is still interested in the game.

The problem now a days is anybody writes an opinion piece that's nothing more than what he/she liked or didn't like about the game without actual analyzing/interpreting design and design intent. Reviews have a lot more fact and analysis than simply saying, "I did/ did not like X game for X, Y, Z reasons." Because at the end of the day someone elses opinion holds so little weight as consumers have a variety of interests and preferences.

Since that's the case any opinion piece holds little to no relevance for many, which is why providing facts regardless of your own preferences/interests is crucial and important for the review process. This just simply isn't the case anymore and it's gotten out of hand. Negative reviews do impact the sales of a game, which in turn decides whether more get made or whether developers will take more risks when making a game. So, I hope more publishers do the same thing Bethesda is doing until reviewers actually start reviewing more or at least quit saying "game review" and start saying "game opinion".

[Perjoss]

The problem seems to be that youtubers and streamers that are more predictable aka more likely to give AAA games a good score or just speak highly of them are still getting early copies, companies are getting selective on who gets early copies and it seems to be based on how likely they are to give positive reactions.

[kevnb]

anti consumer would be trying to control the reviews and mislead people, kind of like sony with no mans sky. Why do you think gameplay was taken down, reviews were stifled even after the game came out, and some reviews were actually decent?

[neomahi]

Bethesda makes great games and they know it. When was the last time a game of theirs was reviews poorly?

I actually see this as a benefit for all gamers. These days, you get on YouTube and look up reviews for a game and a ton of reviews come up from thousands of different people. Some more professional, and a lot of them are just sitting in their recliner with the game box in hand talking about how they got to play the game early. Kind of Funny Games? They're no longer part of a respectable entertainment company but a small group of guys. The YouTube environment doesn't give off the impression to the mass community of gamers that "we're here to help you make a wise purchase", but instead say --with bigger game releases "HEY LOOK! I'm better than you. I'm playing this early, and you have to wait" essentially giving you the finger. It's not enough developers are providing them with a free copy of the game. Really, journalism isn't what it used to be. The Internet allows for free reign, as does YouTube to anyone opinion, including someone whose still studying journalism in college but working at a gaming site. It's not as respectable or a serious as it once was when covering the use. Ah freelance.

Finally, Pre-orders. When Microsoft finally decided to get serious about the console business, they saw with the Xbox 360 that they didn't have the power or influence that Sony had in the gaming market and Nintendo once had during the Nintendo and Super Nintendo era. Microsoft really didn't have any first-party studios while Sony took the time to really develop them and build strong relationships with them during the PlayStation era against Nintendo which caused a lot of pain for Sega with Squaresoft. Sony spent years earning the respect of those companies and Microsoft knew this. Their only way of competing? To use their reputation of having an online console to their advantage. Microsoft wouldn't mostly buy out exclusives, though it happened on occasion but instead talked with developers about directing their games and having content that only existed in their version of the game and then slowly release additional content only for the Microsoft platform that could be downloaded as an expansion for the game making the gamer feel like they're getting more content to expand their games lifespan. This lead to developers developing a final product, and then cutting pieces of it out and selling it later leading to gamers now buying a game only 3/4 of the way complete. Microsoft is the father of DLC. This was the only way they knew how to differentiate themselves from Sony that was taking the gaming industry by storm. Developers had such a good and long lasting relationship with Sony that became an immediate success that Microsoft asked themselves, "how do we compete with that when we don't have a first-party like they do". Yup, all this pre-order bonus content stems from that.

As for this review copy stuff, just be thankful you're getting a free copy of games and you don't have to wait as long as the rest of us to play it, because that's what gaming "journalism" is anymore. Holding something over everyone else's heads. Developers are now leveling the playing field in a saturated market.

[neomahi]

Additionally, as far as reviews go, any uneducated fool can do it. It's a competition now for whose on the list to get free stuff and holding bragging rights over someone's head they not only got a free press copy, but get to play it first and in most cases play it online early to get s leg up on multi-player and have that advantage for let's say Call of Duty. Some games you can't fully review because the online community isn't fully there, so gaming sites have to hold off their full review until the game is released anyway so they can play it online. So IGN, for example, had to adapt with "Reviews in Progress". IGN can no longer fully review a game anyway. So you only get a review of the campaign and have to wait until three days after the games release. Gears 4 suffered this and Titanfall 2 now suffers this on IGN so what difference does it make? You don't get a full review on IGN until three days after the games launch. Call of Duty fans don't wait that long. They want the game as soon as they can get it..... And go right to multi-player, not the campaign.

[Chexs1990]

Well, i'm guessing it'll hurt sales in the long run and they will eventually go back and revoke that policy. Besides, if a Company needs to do this, it stands to reason that they themselves, are nervous about the quality of their games.
Disappointing move from Bethesda/2k

[SlightlyRetarted]

"Dishonoured 2, which imo is a garbage franchise.

The lore , characters and story are not interesting at all, rubbish."

You are not the brightest guy around, aren't you? Media and gamers loved the first Dishonored and judging by the videos of D2, that will happen again.