[NOTE: While this blog is chiefly inspired by a certain N4G article’s comment section I mean no disrespect against the users indirectly referenced. It’s the arguments I’m interested in and I have a limited time until Prey (2017) releases so I wanted this to be more of a topical blog. I hope there’s a healthy dialogue in the comment section.]
Bethesda is one of the most ubiquitous brands in the video game industry. Their published games, mainly in the PC & console markets, of the past one-and-a-half years are considered critical successes. They have millions of fans worldwide and have received dozens upon dozens of E3 and GOTY awards. They’ve had their share of mistakes in the past (1) (2), but rarely have such mistakes garnered apathetic—even positive—responses like their updated early review policy.
For anyone familiar with the whole DOOM (2016) review controversy (3), this should come as no surprise. For those out of the loop: DOOM’s MP beta didn’t exactly go over smoothly with many who participated. Conveniently enough, Bethesda then decided to withhold early press codes of the game because they wanted both consumers and reviewers to have the same MP experience (to paraphrase it) for the…series that’s never been about MP ever. Normally this would be a sure sign of DOOM being a critical flop; in actuality, it went on to be one of the best surprises of 2016. But what appeared to be a one-off decision was later blanketed to all Bethesda-published games from now on (4).
The policy began during the holidays with Skyrim: Special Edition, Dishonored 2, and now Bethesda’s next AAA title on the horizon: Prey/PREY (2017). And what possible prevarication did they use for such a policy with all of these exclusively single-player games, you may ask? Well, they just want…fans and reviewers getting access to it at the same time. Nothing fishy here! When I noticed this policy revalidation I expected a lot of umbrage from every N4G member; instead, a select few assented to the positives of how this could wound traditional games media (5). And while I despise the ignominious behavior of several journalists, and previously-lacking site guidelines from before, I still want to propound why that’s a myopic outlook and the dangers this practice presents.
Now I’m not sure how many recall or kept tabs on Bethesda’s games released during the holiday season because, in case you hadn’t, the PC ports for both were revealed to be incredibly buggy at launch (6). So already this notion of reviewers and consumers ‘sharing’ experiences at the same time was really just their way of burying guaranteed pre-release negativity that would’ve jeopardized sales. And since Bethesda kept their fists incredibly tight on who’d get early access, no one—like those ‘parasitic’ reviewers—had the opportunity to warn about the PC version's current state.
Now, even if reviews don’t appear to carry the weight they used to with the general public (7) can we see why Bethesda’s review policy is unconscionable and clearly anti-consumer yet? That even if this curtailing of information won’t affect the majority of consumers it’s still artificially closing an informational pipeline for the cynical reason of profit motive?
I don’t think it should take long to consider why this is happening now either. Remember just how buddy-buddy mainstream reviewers have been with Bethesda games for over a decade now? People still—insanely—consider Fallout 3 to be one of the best RPG’s of the previous decade! Just having some fun. Anyways, the timing isn’t tough to consider when harsher criticisms have been applied to the most recent releases of their biggest IP’s: The Elder Scrolls Online (8) and Fallout 4 (9). And, overall, they weren’t even being that harsh to begin with, which goes to show just how safe Bethesda wants to place their bets.
None of this is to say game critics deserve to be in everyone’s good graces. I’ve spoken about their failings at length before and still hold them to be quite inconsistent today—which invariably pushes me to improve as well. Having said all that, I don’t quite follow the ire of traditional games media to the level I’ve seen. I mean…hasn’t this whole “ethics in games journalism” rant these past few years resulted in several sites updating their disclosure policies to that of standard enthusiast press? I figured that’s the most realistic bet one could ask for. Even if there’s clear cases of some sites not meeting that standard, at least one can find SOME semblance of a standard compared to that of alternative media.
There’s one caveat Bethesda—conveniently enough!—overlooked when sharing their new review policy: select streamers approved by them would be able to receive early copies. Game streamers have become a huge deal to modern gaming culture, and publishers are not ignorant of their influence. From the likes of PewDiePie (10) to JonTron (11), there’s popular examples of streamers making videos whose sole existence was to act as long-form advertisements. Just say so in the description (hopefully not hidden behind the ‘Show More’ tab) and you’re good to go. This occurred with Skyrim: Special Edition too as—naturally—some streamers received early copies weeks in advance of its release for the price of their soul (12) (13). Okay, fine, I’m privy to fan culture and get the idea of liking Bethesda’s games. I can’t completely hold their enthusiasm against them. But it does bring a question to the fore: what does it say about Bethesda that the only people they want getting early copies, engaging with their product, and critiquing it have to be, like, a few degrees from being a total shill for the company?
Of course publishers aren’t legally obligated to give out early copies for reviewers; however, it sets a deplorable cultural precedent. I know I linked that pie chart earlier about reviewer influence, but I’d argue there’s a more invisible-yet-tangible contract with early review copies. It’s become an expectation across almost any artistic medium in helping to facilitate discussion in admonishing or endorsing certain titles, creating an environment of healthy criticism in the process. Whilst not limited to this, I think trust developers like Naughty Dog have received over the years stems from this sort of understanding they and their publisher seem to have—at least with ND-developed titles. I can still recall when Uncharted 3’s review embargo was lifted roughly two weeks before it came out. I thought that was a cool move on their part, showing a confidence in their product rarely seen to such an extent from others in the industry. Even IF the majority of consumers were set on purchasing, it still showcases a respect for said 'cultural contract' and a yearning to have people discussing your completed project as soon as possible; conversely, Bethesda's showcased a disrespect for this when a spreadsheet just so happened to suggest it wasn't in their best interest.
“What do you then propose?” you may be asking. For starters, it’d be nice for everyone to be on the same page about the negative effects of this decision; further, that extenuating such an anti-consumer practice because of it potentially harming modern games journalism (those meanies!) is really narrow-minded if you were to carefully consider the long-term ramifications. Everyone else except the publisher’s potential profit margins, and the few streamers which may inevitably help said publisher, get a raw deal.
Once past this acknowledgment, I’m ambivalent as to what parameters ought to be made for publishers who makes these types of policies. What I’m incredibly confident will NOT make effective change whatsoever are sanctimonious speeches with no meaningful follow-through (of which I'm also guilty of committing). I get the yearning to vent frustrations after being burned from time to time, annoyed at the sorry state certain games are launched. But the bottom line is these companies don’t start—truly—considering these complaints until their bottom line is damaged in the process. As to what extent that entails is, as I said, tough for me to narrow down
.
For some, the go-to is abolishing pre-orders altogether. A scorched earth approach. But in today’s context of re-releases, packaged physical copies of previously-digital-only titles, etc. there’s complexities I don’t think are often considered. Perhaps make an effort to getting all Bethesda games in the second-hand market from now on? Never purchasing another Bethesda title (developed and/or published) again until this is rectified? I leave that up to you. Personally, I’m curious to see just how quickly they’d change their tune by simply holding off on a Bethesda game you really wanted a couple of weeks after its release.
“Bethesda: No early review copies.
You: Okay. I’ll just wait until the consensus is in to see if it’s worth my time.
Bethesda: Umm…what?”
Since the AAA industry seems to be so reliant on first week sales to gauge success, I figure they’d get the message quite clearly. And that’s not even much of an ask for this situation. Maybe even that is too lenient of a response—of which I’m happy to see what you think in the comments section.
In conclusion, I’m, uh, probably concluding this too soon. There’s a broader cultural analysis to have about publisher-reviewer relations, consumer culture, and the AAA industry at large that haven’t been broached enough here. But as I stated earlier, I wanted to focus specifically on Bethesda because of the discussion I recently had (5) and how topical this dilemma is—with the potential of affecting someone’s purchase. If you are one that’s really interested in the new Prey and have thoroughly read this: hopefully I’ve presented some info here for you to consider. This policy erodes conversation (specifically in the pre-release phase) in simple and also oft-not-considered ways, hinders a specific method of information for nefarious reasons, and the only significant way to have your voice heard about this grievance is with your wallet.
Links:
1. http://www.pcgamer.com/beth...
2. http://www.gamesradar.com/h...
3. http://kotaku.com/bethesda-...
4. https://bethesda.net/en/art...
5. http://n4g.com/news/2049589...
6. https://www.extremetech.com...
7. http://www.theesa.com/wp-co...
8. http://www.metacritic.com/g...
9. http://www.metacritic.com/g...
10. http://www.playstationlifes...
11. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
12. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
13. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Hades II just got a huge injection of new content as the action-RPG continues its journey through Early Access.
Game Rant interviews Plants vs. Zombies composer Peter McConnell about honoring the series’ quirky roots, adapting its themes, and now going vinyl.
The score for the first Plants Vs Zombies is such great, iconic music that it has a timeless quality. Not quite the level of Minecraft, but wonderful in its own right.
Game Rant speaks with actor Samantha Béart about their new and upcoming video game roles in Tron: Catalyst, Fading Echo, and more.
I hope everyone enjoyed the blog. Please feel free to leave your comments and/or questions down below. I don't mean to be very pushy against those who may have pre-ordered Prey (2017) already, but I'd really like those who ARE in that group who may have read this to reconsider. In the end, it's your decision. But regardless of where are opinions may lie on this issue and how to handle it, I'd still appreciate seeing what you have to say on this issue.
I don't agree with late review embargoes at all. That shows a lack of confidence or transparency on the devs part to me.
But Prey did have a demo, which I hear is underwhelming but I have yet to try it myself.
I'm in agreement that this anti-consumer
I already learned this gen not to pre-order games anymore, and now if there's no demo/beta available I'll wait until a video is online for a game before I buy it to see what it is (or borrow/watch a friend).
With the review embargo one of the first things argued is leaked story content, or spoilers, and the companies will argue this is why they want to wait so everyone is on the same playing field. I do agree with some of the points from the blog since there is some areas where it makes sense. Some companies like streamers like PewDiePie because he makes obnoxious jokes and content to "curb" people from the main game itself and instead concentrate on him, and if he says the game is fun/good then his followers will buy it because he said it's a good game, not because it actually is.
With Bethesda and the review embargo, I'd go back to Destiny with Activision. I remember on N4G specifically there was an article about waiting until the game released to write a review, and the point made was "the game servers aren't available." Some of the community agreed and debated in favor of Destiny, while others like me thought it was odd how other multiplayer-esqe games allowed reviewers to play before release dates. Then the whole point of "sold review copies" started which made some other companies decide no and wait. If a company is that concerned about a review copy being sold, or too much story content be told, make an NDA where the game is talked about, the story isn't spoiled, and instead provide a digital version over physical so it forces people to not be able to resell it (and make it account locked so it can't be accessed by other people).
As a whole, I call the embargo situation BS on the companies. Most of them lost a lot of their talent for various reasons, and instead of taking risks to get back on top they'd rather play it safe and release what everyone else does - garbage.
Personally, I pre-order if the game intrigues me after doing my share of research (In this instance, Prey intrigues me - I'd like to own it as soon as possible - get the pre-order goodies). Once the game is released, I, as the consumer/gamer, digest what's been delivered. If the game is broken, a mess, horrid - I take that as a lesson, and I don't pre-order a game from that series, ever again.
Do I think having no reviews prior to a games release, as anti-consumer? Yes. Absolutely.
Am I surprised they are embracing this practice? No, not at all.
If the publisher in question burns me on multiple titles across multiple developers, I don't pre-order anything from them, ever again - until they clean up their record (which, let's be honest, they don't). But if they want to continue burning, then they will. I however, learned - and won't be burned again. Example being, I no longer pre-order anything from Activision (and those beneath them). And EA is now in that bracket as well (and all those beneath them). Ubisoft is up there too.
That's just how I go about it. I listen to the opinions.
In the past I myself have wanted people to avoid pre-ordering games from a certain series. But ultimately people have their own passion / need / love / desire, for a game or experience. You can't stop someone, you can only help teach them so they themselves avoid the burn in the future.