Bethesda’s Review Policy Sets a Terrible Precedent

HPP: Don’t start sending the industry down a dark road, Bethesda. You should be able take your time to fix bugs, add features, polish things up and craft something you can feel justifiably proud of. Let us do the same.

[derkasan]

If they didn't play favorites, I wouldn't think this was so bad.

[cleft5]

Ultimately game journalist only have themselves to blame for these new policies. Publishers have always wanted to pull this, hell if publishers could get away with it, they wouldnt send review copies out at all. In the past this was unthinkable because game journalist/game reviewers had the ear and hearts of the consumers aka the gamers.

Yet recent trends have shown the core consumers moving away from listening to reviewers and more toward listening to video content producer, be it Youtubers or live streamers, like those on Twitch.

On top of that, the credibility of game journalist has come under much scrutiny in recent memory. This is largely due to game journalist effectively attacking their audience. Releasing articles that have been extremely anti-gamer/anti-consumer. When you bite the hand that feeds you or in this case give you staying power, what do you expect will happen? Publishers like Bethesda have been waiting for a chance to cut out game journalist and control the message. By having game journalist turn on their consumers in favor of pushing agendas they gave Publisher like Bethesda the chance to cut them out of the loop. Surprise, surprise Bethesda took them up on that opportunity.

[MatrixxGT]

This whole situation is joe blo going deep sea fishing in a kiddie pool.

Back in the day you had a few publications that would have reviews but now anybody can create a blog and call themselves a game critic.

Then they get free games early and write a review with a flashy headline to generate clicks on an ad ridden website laid out by a 3 year old coloring outside the lines.

Bethesda isn't ruining anything, the consumers are. It only takes one look at the comment section on any article here to prove that.

[ninsigma]

Very well put. Whenever I see an article complaining about this, I see it as the publications scrambling to get out ahead of this as if it's not their own fault for being shady, agenda driven unprofessionals.

[ZaWarudo]

These journalist are salty that they can't rush out their clickbait reviews early. That's really why so many sites are crying foul.
If you want feedback and impressions, don't buy it day one. Simple. Just wait.

[Stevonidas]

You mean, HAVE DISCIPLINE? The fuck is that?

[ZaWarudo]

I'll show you! *Takes out belt*

[MasterCornholio]

As Jim Sterling said now developers will rush their reviews because of this.

Before critics received their games early and had an embargo date.

This allows two things to happen.

1. Gives reviewers more time to write their reviews.
2. Eliminates the worry about the other sites releasing their reviews first.

By not sending out reviews early critics will just rush their reviews just so that they have their reviews out earlier than the competition. This will affect the quality of reviews because critics won't analyze the game as much.

Fortunately not all reviewers worry about this type of thing. Total Biscuit says that he has a loyal fanbase that are willing to wait for his reviews so he doesn't have a problem with that. However the critics that don't have that will be in trouble.

@S45

Didn't critics received the console version of the game?

The game is fine in consoles but on PC it was broken. The reason why that happened was because Rocksteady gave the responsibility of the PC version to very poor porting studio. I agree that they should have done a much better job with the PC version of Arkham Knight.

[xPhearR3dx]

"This will affect the quality of reviews"

Lol the quality of reviews have been complete garbage for years. The majority of reviewers only use a fraction of the numerical scale, that being 7, 8 or 9. And anytime a game someone is looking forward to doesn't receive a score they expected (despite not even playing the game yet) they comment with "Don't care, buying it anyway" .

The only people suffering from this policy are journalist who don't get to play before everyone else. No review is going to stop someone from purchasing a game day 1 they're excited about and have been wanting to play for MONTHS if not YEARS. Except if every review comes out saying the game is completely broken. Think Arkham Knight PC.

[s45gr32]

Maybe is because gamers have become better reviewers than videogame journalists. It was the steam community that after reviewing Batman Arkham Knight. They informed everybody that the game was broken. In contrast gaming journalists were giving glowing reviews og say game.

[ninsigma]

If the quality of reviews goes down, I can see less and less people relying on them. I consider that to be a good thing.

[robtion]

It's not really that simple. The industry hypes day 1 buys and aggressively pushes this agenda by making all kind of pre-order bonuses, play the game a day/week early etc

They don't want you to wait to buy.

[Andofaus]

Yep or their review and final score of a game is not a reflection of the quality of the product but by what will get more clicks, the gaming media at this point is irrelevant and only real opinions by gamers, tubers, steamers and the like are what matters. As others have said in the comments the media outlets only have their selves to blame for policies like this.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I don't know if I honestly care , the reality is if somebody truly wants a game but is worried about the quality they could simply wait for the review embargo to be lifted, I always see this as a first-world problem because exactly who is forcing anyone to purchase this on the very first day of release?

I don't remember the last time a review has ever influenced me to ever purchase a game or not purchase a game

[Vegamyster]

No reviewer is perfect and you'll always see inconsistencies but this doesn't benefit the consumer in anyway and i don't see why it should be changed, obviously you can just wait until after the game launches but knowing about a games potential problems like technical issues or bugs before launch is better than after.

[ninsigma]

A problem with that is if it's reviewed before launch it's technically not the same experience as what the consumers will have.

Edit: fixed spelling

[GrimmyReaper]

Yea because no company has ever done THAT before, right? Hiding bugs and glitches and poor optimization?

Remember Watch Dogs? Remember Battlefield 4? Remember Assassin's Creed Unity? Look up most of the embargo's on triple A games these days. These companies don't tell you so people like you don't notice. And then people bitch about it and then comes the next game and all is forgotten. This absolutely doesn't affect consumers. How?

Those that already don't buy games day one won't be affected.
Those that buy games day one will buy it regardless of reviews and numbers prove this.

Barely a few hours after Unity launched, people posted bugs and frame rate issues and what not and people STILL bought it.
Watch Dogs downgrades were noticeable weeks before launch and people STILL bought it.
Same with the division.

And any review that dares break their bubble of hype is simply ignored and labeled as "Clickbait review by hater" because again. People are gonna buy those triple A games regardless.

Either have some patience and self control or face the consequences of trusting a company of all things. And no, releasing buggy and unfinished games shouldn't be acceptable, but seeing how people buy these games day one, companies make their money regardless. If Bethesda's new policy has pushed you to wait before buying a game, they have done you a bigger favor than you even realize.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed.

[Vegamyster]

@GrimmyReaper

People like me? I don't buy games based on reviews, trailers and very rarely at launch so don't generalize me with millions of other consumers, my argument is that these reviews while not all perfect are simple tools and they're being taken away for no good reason, the less hoops the consumer has to jump through to know if a product is good or not the better.

[DragonKnight]

You ignore 2 important problems.

First is supply. We've all seen stories of, and even experienced ourselves, games we can't buy due to supply demands. Sometimes said supply issues make wait times ridiculously long. This is especially bad with Amazon's pre-order setup.

Second is online purchases. People tend to think in bubbles and in very self-centered ways. The idea that you don't have to worry about supply if you buy digital ignores things like network availability, bandwidth caps, etc.. Separately these issues mean very little, together they are a problem. Some people don't feel like waiting an extra few weeks to get a game they paid full price for in order to have day one, and don't have the network ability to get digital.

But even disregarding all of this, no one should be defending anti-consumer tactics such as trying to maximize sales via ignorance.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I over all agree with the majority of what you're saying but I still stand by that no consumer necessarily needs to purchase any game the first day of its release.

If it takes some time for reviewer or consumers to address some issues then so be it, I believe that within a week's time or so they're going to be able to publicize any serious issues.

I completely understand why a company is basically saying we're not going to be giving out copies of our games weeks ahead of time.

These guys very much know that people are going to be purchasing their game around the launch with very little information and basically gambling if it has issues or not and I don't even disagree with you slightly on your last sentence that they're trying to "maximize sales via ignorance"

But this is one of those situations where you as a consumer just need to make up your own mind in regards to how you purchase, because I feel like those who are ignorant enough to purchase before reading a review were likely not going to wait for one anyway.

This is definitely a difficult situation and it's only going to get more difficult with new intellectual properties in which lots of the features and Concepts will be questionable until release.

I think the only new intellectual property I pre-ordered this generation was actually until dawn and I was pleasantly surprised but let's be honest things could have went the other way and it could have been a terrible game the only other and new intellectual property I'm actually pre-ordering is Horizon zero Dawn because I trust the team and thus far I like what I saw but I don't think I'm like most gamers I'm actually more laxed on my game purchases and many times if the game delivers on a couple of components I'm pretty fun but I don't think everyone is going to be that way regarding games.

Lol I mean nowadays if I got a good seven-hour campaign with a decent story I seem to be ok. A game would have to be just absolutely royally jacked up for me to question purchasing it upon release I was even fine with Fallout 4 and Witcher 3 issues when they both released.

But I still completely understand what you're saying not all consumers will feel this way.

[opinionated]

I like the precedent, I hope more developers follow suit. I hope that voice actors union collapses under their own stupidity as well. These idiots think they are a valuable part of the industry, enough to make demands and threaten publishers. In reality they are becoming more useless by the day. We don't need these middlemen anymore. Certainly in no position to lecture or make demands.

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

Voice actors are becoming useless, and aren't a valuable part of the industry?

[s45gr32]

I love your sarcasm

[opinionated]

Not voice actors, the union.

[s45gr32]

Well videogame journalists are a joke. So I agree with you on that; however, I disagree in regards to SAG-AFTRA union. It is the unions that speak in behalf of workers and defend workers rights. These unions are not perfect in regards to featherbedding, union fees, or seniority preference. Still, I wish there were game developer unions to protect game developers. Too many game developers lose their ip (Hideo Kojima lost the rights to make Metal Gear games 😭 even though he was the creator), work long hours, lose their jobs, or get underpaid. With a workers union game developers will be better off. If you want great games, we need happy game developers.

[opinionated]

Unions are not needed anymore. They are a radical egalitarian joke. The publishers just released a statement and said they are a joke and if they don't get their shit together they are going to avoid working with that union in the future. I hope it happens.

[ninsigma]

A lot of unions are fairly agenda driven these days and a lot of these strikes etc often happen even if the workers didn't want it. The union are making them to fit their agenda. Kojima didn't lose the rights to make metal gear. Konami always owned the IP. The game is surely better off in the hands of Kojima but he technically didn't own it even though he created it.

[Lamboomington]

that makes no sense at all.

Gaming reviews are ultimately for the consumer. Giving journalists less time to do their reviews just means more rushed reviews, more people buying the game before reviews. ie Consumers don't have access to good information about the game before they purchase.

[opinionated]

In theory you're right. In reality you give these people too much credit. Especially with the bigger publications, you act like these people are professionals giving expert analysis. They arent.

If consumers rush to buy games they don't know anything about or base their opinions on clowns who "rush their reviews to make a buck" then they are shitty consumers and need to take some responsibility. Own up to their dumb choices.

[ninsigma]

"Giving journalists less time to do their reviews"

I'd have thought not being tied to a day before release would mean they have even more time....

[admiralvic]

I agree.

I find it amazing how some people are acting like a couple of bad journalists have ruined it for everyone and the YouTubers and the like are righteous.

Part of the problem is that people don't want fair reviews, but reviews based off morales and values. A great example of this is Street Fighter V. The Metacritic average for SFV is 77 for critics and 3.4 for user reviews.

The issue people have is simple. Street Fighter V did not ship as a complete product and the modes/content included was underwhelming. What people want is journalists to punish the game for releasing early. These would be scores in the 3 out of 10 range. However, despite Street Fighter V lacking arcade, trials and more, it plays pretty well. The core mechanics are solid and features no bugs.

This is where the issues come into play. Do you make a stand and give it a really low score because it isn't as full as you think it should be or do you give it an okay score because it's a good game, it just isn't complete. It seems most journalists went for the latter, where as YouTubers and other sources went for the former, so the community seems to view the former as more trustworthy.

[Tctczach]

I don't buy games based on reviews. I feel people should go in blind and experience and form their own opinions. I get some people like to read and get the general consensus on how it plays. If I do this I usually end up fixating on a problem that stood out to them and I don't enjoy it that much.

[solidboss]

The whole point here is knowing that you aren't getting a broken/buggy product or in the case of no man's sky be completely lied to. It's not like how it was in the 90's where you can maybe read a review of a game but even then who's to say it wasn't sponsored or paid off? Even then everything was mostly word of mouth so there was no way of knowing if a game was worth it or not unless a friend that you trust gives you impressions or you borrow it from them. Now we have easy access to such information all it takes is a little patience to see if your $60 is being well spent. It bothers me that things like this happen and its okay for the video game industry but why not any other industry? At times it can seem like the video game industry almost takes its audience as idiots with the things they are able to pull off

[kindkinesis]

Agree with your view

[s45gr32]

What do you guys think about this?

[CrimsonWing69]

Maybe reviewers need to actually review and not just write a 2nd grade opinion report on why they like and don't like a game. You want someone to blame then blame the half-assed three-ring circus that's games' media.

[eldingo]

It feels like they used a sledgehammer where a scalpel may have worked better

I would have preferred a more middle ground approach with them being more selective of who gets review copies instead of everybody not really knowing what the games gonna be like till launch watching gameplay before the game comes out on youtube is one of the easiest ways to get a feel for a game before its out.

Time can only tell how this plays out and who follows the precedent kinda sad most journalism is so bad that the article writer had to explain for half the article that he wasn't the cynical clickbait writer that most of em are right now.