Review Bombing Might Have Met Its End After New FTC Ruling

The six new FTC rules aim to distill reviews into authentic ones only, but players might lose leverage.

[Obscure_Observer]

Excellent!

[TallDarknWavy]

From the comments I see no one read the article.
The law stipulates you can't PAY for reviews, either positive or negative (towards a competitor).
It is very difficult to prove this, but reviews by consumers will always be allowed and unrestricted.

[TOTSUKO]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the live service hate online is paid by activision or epic games for example to keep their sheep. With the money they make I wouldn’t put it past a corporation. This is kind of a smoking gun.

[Hofstaderman]

Well MS owns most publications so how will those work? They pay those so-called journalists salaries. And it shows with the tripe fluff articles... Oh and their reviews affect metacritic scores so it is a form of review bombing.

[Obscure_Observer]

"The law stipulates you can't PAY for reviews, either positive or negative (towards a competitor).
It is very difficult to prove this, but reviews by consumers will always be allowed and unrestricted."

*Consumers* is the keyword here. You might not be able to submit a "review" for a game that you didn´t paid for.

And that´s awesome news!

Take a look at the Last of Us 2 User Reviews at Metacritic for instance:

https://www.metacritic.com/...

I mean, how many negative reviews got submitted by actual owners of the game vs reviews posted homophobic insecure incels? I get that not everybody was happy with the game´s plot and direction, but the overwhelming zeros for that games was definitely submitted by insecure trolls. Period!

[Psychonaut85]

This is N4G, no one actually reads the articles

[RauLeCreuset]

@Obscure

It is unfortunately not what the article makes it seem. Part of it is on the article for not digging further. There are tells in the article that the writer did not read the FTC rule. Part of it is on the FTC for leaving room for misinterpretation in communications meant for public consumption announcing the rule.

The article's premise is based on the supposed ban on "fake online reviews and testimonials." The article pulled that quote from the intro of Lina Khan's tweet, which is linked in the article and is the same as the headline of the FTC's press release.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-ev...

That phrase is not used in the body of the tweet where more detail is given on the prohibitions, nor is it in the rule, which you can get to from a link in the above linked FTC press release but I will also include here:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/...

The closest term to it in the rule is "Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, or Celebrity." There is a section for it in the rule that lists what is prohibited.

It doesn't prohibit all fake reviews.

Three of the four paragraphs under that section basically prohibit businesses from writing, creating, selling, or buying fake reviews and testimonials that are misrepresented as real reviews, and prohibits businesses from procuring fake reviews misrepresented as real from their employees or immediate family members of their employees.

The fourth paragraph provides exceptions to the second and third paragraphs (B and C) for "reviews or testimonials that resulted from a business making generalized solicitations to purchasers to post reviews or testimonials about their experiences with the product, service, or business; or reviews that appear on a website or platform as a result of the business merely engaging in consumer review hosting."

You can read the rule for the particulars.

Bottom line: The article includes falsehoods that apparently result from not reading the FTC rule. People panicking over the idea that they can no longer legally create fake reviews to bring about self-fulfilling prophecies from their "go woke, go broke" declarations can relax. The FTC doesn't consider that their business. Nor do they care about your fake social media followers so long as it isn't for commercial purposes.

[rlow1]

Thanks for the links.

[Eonjay]

Agreed.

[VariantAEC]

People won't be allowed to say mean things about the Xbox anymore. We all know you like that.

This will actually only hurt Xbox and MS though, as they are typically the ones purchasing good will.

[Obscure_Observer]

Whatever

[-Foxtrot]

How will this work though because when a company genuinely does anti-consumer things to p*** people off or when the game is just down right bad people still say it's "review bombing" like there's this set agenda when really it's rightfully deserved. At the end of the day it's the only way to get through to a studio that's done wrong, that and overall sales because they'll lose money

[TricksterArrow]

Review bombing does nothing anymore. Most games that get review bombed either: sell despite it, because people are aware that the players review bombing have an agenda themselves (attacking a console exclusive, attacking a game because it’s woke, grifting, or whatever is the hot word right now, attacking a game because it’s from a particular developer, etc.); or they already thought the game was bad/good anyways and were already set on buying or not.

What speaks nowadays is sales and player base, case in point: Concord. Starfield. Etc.

[Knushwood Butt]

'What speaks nowadays is sales and player base, case in point: Concord. Starfield. Etc.'.

Don't forget awareness.

[Tacoboto]

Review bombing caused Sony to partially change course with Helldivers 2's post-launch PSN bait-and-switch.

So yes it can be used to speak effectively in ways sales and player count alone can't. Sony had assumed with both sales and player count they could've gotten away with something like that.

[Christopher]

Disagree on review bombings. If you haven't touched the game you shouldn't be publicly reviewing the game. You already are speaking with your money and can complain online, but you aren't providing any true analysis of a game other than repeating what others are telling you. It's extremely rare that a review bombing has been for good reason or having anything to do with the quality of a game as it is politics or just disagreeing with with situational differences of opinion that aren't properly shared across the industry and are blatantly targeted to specific companies just to complain about them.

[Eonjay]

This. If a game is truly bad or broken it is more often than not reflected in legitimate reviews anyway.

[blackblades]

Wonder if this will effect metacritic, like they have to change the user scores for ones that actually bought game or start banning people that's obviously bombing. Also FTC been on a roll lately if y'all know what happened in the past 2 weeks with cases.

[Knightofelemia]

You're never going to stop review bombs. Review bombs have been around way before the internet. Companies review bomb every thing. From their own product on Amazon, what they are selling on Ebay, a business on Google reviews. All that could be good or crap. I remember movie trailers picking out the exciting stuff to show off the movie to find out the movie was crap. If I want a game review I turn to this site called Twitch. I search the game that has my interest. I avoid the big partnered streamers and go to the little guy who does offer their own opinion about the game.

[CrimsonWing69]

Reviews are that disruptive to businesses that they have to find ways to… bury them? Scummy. What’s next? DMCA takedowns on YouTube reviews that express negativity?

[SimpleDad]

Good luck!

Edit: I like the thumbnail of Helldivers 2 where the skin was never given or PSN requirement never removed.

[Zombieburger638]

Right so when a company does scummy shit we have no way of holding them accountable. Corporate greed is killing everything.

[rippermcrip]

You hold companies accountable by not buying the game. Helldivers 2 for example.

PSN was always a listed requirement. So you had the choice right then and there to not purchase the game. The devs temporarily removed the requirement, while also warning that it would be coming back.

When they did bring it back, that is when all the BS review bombing began.

People could have simply stopped playing the game and stopped buying it. It would have been just as effective as putting up fake reviews.

[Zombieburger638]

And what am I to do when they need the game into oblivion after I already purchased it and the devs won’t listen? Nah the helldivers devs should have enforced it day one but they didn’t. Screw them and sony.

[rippermcrip]

If you have a legit gripe, it isn't review bombing.

If you change your score from a 10 to a 1 because they implemented something YOU KNEW was a requirement before you purchase it.... that is review bombing.

It isn't hard to understand the difference.

[VariantAEC]

Less to do with greed and more to do with overwhelming control at this point. Many just convince you they are good and pound anyone who says otherwise into the dirt. It might help them make money in the short term, but eventually people will figure it out. The thing is that greed didn't force this, human egos forced this. Corporations are run by people, people with loads of cash and too many of those in leadership have chips on their shoulders these days. Everyone is trying to change the world with their trinkets.

[DivineHand125]

I support the change. I just hope they have some way of enforcing it. For the past couple of years, fake reviews across the board have become rampant to the point where when you see a product with 5 stars with thousands of reviews, you have to wonder if it is legit. This new ruling seems like an exact match for what Amazon uses on their platform, but people have found a way of getting around it by sending fake packages with random stuff as Amazon orders and then using those linked dummy accounts to write reviews.

In the one scenario where people use review bombing as a means of pressuring the publisher for change, it will not be as effective as making your voice known on their social media. Pages and simply stop playing or refusing to support those games. Nothing throws a publisher in more panic than seeing the active player counts drop like a stone.

[Inverno]

I don't think people really understand how review bombing works. It's not so much the act of review bombing, that part is mostly done to get people's attention to the issue. You put out a bad product and people will talk about it on every social media platform on the Internet, and you can't stop people from being opinionated.

[MrNinosan]

There are many steps that could be made for more accurate customer reviews.
Steam is doing it decently, where you actually have to own the game, and the review will tell how much has been played.

I would like the same for Metacritic.
To be able to post a review, you need to register your PSID, Gamertag etc and reach a certain amount of hours before the review can be placed.

This would remove hundreds/thousands of reviews that comes from people who never played the game.

[Obscure_Observer]

"Steam is doing it decently, where you actually have to own the game, and the review will tell how much has been played."

It should also be the rule for mainstream media reviews as well.

"I would like the same for Metacritic.
To be able to post a review, you need to register your PSID, Gamertag etc and reach a certain amount of hours before the review can be placed."

That would be perfect.

[Tapani]

This is good. I dislike the noise based on often short term and insignificant problems which may have a solution 1-2 weeks later. Even if there is no solution available then, if a potential downside doesn't change the overall good experience with the game that drastically, I don't want anyone bombing anything.

I trust larger and critical sites anyway, but I don't like to see childish behavior online generally.

Review bombing distracts from the fun momentum of a new release. The negative review numbers are always highly saturated and polarized, and only focus on one small aspect and extrapolate unrealistic scenarios and opinions from there.

This behavior also forgets the human side of game development and possibly hurts a lot of feelings of many developers who poured their hard work into a product. Many also do not understand that the developers may not be always aware of issues or have the full power or time to correct them.

Positivity creates positivity, and positive mindset always brings better results and outcomes compared to a nihilistic attitude.

[justsomeoffdude]

Going through the article, it sounds reasonable. But I do not for one second believe it'll happen in real life.

[RiseNShine]

Purchase and shut up!

[anast]

Typical dirtbag behavior

[LostPotato]

There is legally no way to stop negative or review bombing by consumers, Other sites have various tactics to stop or limit them, but untimely they get caught and it backfires. The most famous are on Yelp were the reviewed business sues users,

Anyway that's not the point of the law if you read more then just the clickbait headline.

[Elantregaless]

Oh yes. The next Gollum wont be review bombed.

[Ra3030]

I think what more important than review bombing coming to a end is the "paid for positive reviews" and "paid for negative reviews" to hurt your competition's games that Microsoft is famous for this type behavior hopefully has now come to and end.