Bethesda Announces They're Not Giving Out Reivew Copies Anymore...

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Pretty much the title, TotalBiscuit explains it further in this video...


So... I'll catch heat for this, but I'm with the publishers on this one.

As a consumer, I liked Mafia 3 right? It has flaws and shit, but I'm able to put up with them and enjoy the game. Now, why should I... the person that actually wants to play and enjoy the game and have a good time have to pay full price for it but the critic- who doesn't care if they enjoy it or not -gets it for free and a week early to boot?

Kevin Smith has his own rant on Critics when Red State came out. He had his audience right? His audience loves his stuff, he doesn't need the critics giving him the ink because he can make his films cheap and turn a profit on his hardcore fans. He doesn't have to grow his fanbase. So again, his logic was "Why am I going to let these people, who are just going to shit over the film anyway, see it early and for free when my own audience that wants to see it has to pay? It doesn't make sense"

Now I'm sure some people will say "but these game companies ship broken games!" and it's like... listen ************, we all know preordering is a gamble. We live in the day and age of livestreaming and lets plays, you don't NEED a review, you can literally just watch raw gameplay footage the next day after release and decide if it's worth purchasing or not.

This will be an unpopular opinion, but as a consumer, I don't feel that reviewers should be getting copies of the game early nor should they be getting them for free. I don't feel like it hurts consumers at all, because if one has the little modicum of patience and self-restraint, you won't get burned by broken games.
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
Well...
At the same time, these same companies are advertising hard, building all the hype they can and pushing preorders.
I can't help but feel that this is connected somehow. Like they fear that consumers will realize that their game might not live up to all that hype, and they will lose those all important (to them) day one sales and preorders.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
That strikes me as rather petty on your part.

It doesn't effect you in the slightest if someone else gets the game for free and/or early as part of their job. You're just being envious.

Bethesda is not doing you a solid. This does not benefit you in any way. They are doing this entirely for their own benefit then justifying it with bullshit about fairness.

On the other hand, I don't mind them doing this. Publishers don't owe critics anything and this doesn't affect me since I don't bother reading reviews when I can just look up unedited gameplay on Youtube whenever I want.
 
Jan 19, 2016
692
0
0
Bethesda are shifty cunts, just like every other publisher in this industry. This is a rare case of them actually being upfront about their shiftiness. It doesn't make them any lesser cunts, but at least they aren't trying to pretend their not out to fool you before word gets out about their terrible games. I almost admire that in a weird way.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too? You do know that is their job, right? You might agree with their opinions or not, but they are not the average consumer. Or how else do you expect people talking about a hundreds hour long game like Final Fantasy 13 before it hits the streets. You also know that games and movies are not scarce resources, right? It is not like them watching a movie or downloading a game somehow means other people don't get to do it. They are not robing you of anything. Most critic screenings happen outside normal hours, so they are not even robing you of a seat.

I don't feel so affected because I very rarely buy games on release date, and I often do some research with people that I trust, but I don't kid myself by thinking this is nothing but Bethesda being a corporation. Why go out of my way to inform people if I risk them not liking what they see? Why allow channels of information that I don't control screw over my marketing machinery? What better way to have a hype train that controlling the conversation for as long as possible?

The Kevin Smith issue is no different... It boils down to him already knowing the result. He knows he has a fervent, niche audience that loves his style, and doesn't care much for other people. He knows his movies are not the kind of movies critics like, either by style, tone or subject, so he doesn't like giving them the chance of controlling the conversation before the movie is released to his loving, self-centered, not-massive audience. That is fair. I am of the idea that, if he wishes, he should make movies for him before having to consider "the public", but that is the extend of his qualms with "the critics"... it is not about justice or fairness. If he knew a segment of the critics large enough to fill a movie theater that loved his work unconditionally, he would personally send the invitations to critics screenings every day, twice on sunday.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Mangod said:
DudeistBelieve said:
Pretty much the title, TotalBiscuit explains it further in this video...


So... I'll catch heat for this, but I'm with the publishers on this one.

As a consumer, I liked Mafia 3 right? It has flaws and shit, but I'm able to put up with them and enjoy the game. Now, why should I... the person that actually wants to play and enjoy the game and have a good time have to pay full price for it but the critic- who doesn't care if they enjoy it or not -gets it for free and a week early to boot?

Kevin Smith has his own rant on Critics when Red State came out. He had his audience right? His audience loves his stuff, he doesn't need the critics giving him the ink because he can make his films cheap and turn a profit on his hardcore fans. He doesn't have to grow his fanbase. So again, his logic was "Why am I going to let these people, who are just going to shit over the film anyway, see it early and for free when my own audience that wants to see it has to pay? It doesn't make sense"

Now I'm sure some people will say "but these game companies ship broken games!" and it's like... listen ************, we all know preordering is a gamble. We live in the day and age of livestreaming and lets plays, you don't NEED a review, you can literally just watch raw gameplay footage the next day after release and decide if it's worth purchasing or not.

This will be an unpopular opinion, but as a consumer, I don't feel that reviewers should be getting copies of the game early nor should they be getting them for free. I don't feel like it hurts consumers at all, because if one has the little modicum of patience and self-restraint, you won't get burned by broken games.
Wow, I literally just watched TB's video on the subject, and you just proved his point about fanboy tribalism. Just... you're an idiot. The reviewer's job is to warn you when shit like No Man's Sky is getting shipped in a blatantly unadvertised state, and you're saying it's unfair, because the reviewer gets to play it before you?

Just give your credit card information to Bethesda, if you're gonna be that willing to just tow the company line.
Okay, and here's why your wrong and Total Biscuit is wrong.

*AHEM*

YOUTUBE AND LIVESTREAMING HAVE RENDERED CRITICS AND REVIEWS OBSOLETE ON THE BROAD SCALE!

Why do I friggin need TotalBiscuits opinion, which I do value mind you (it's why I linked him in the thread), when I can simply see a huge amount of RAW Gameplay footage for free on the internet the week of release? ANSWER? I don't. I didn't read any critics review before I bought Mafia 3. I went ahead and watched someone play it for a couple hours and decided, YES THIS IS AN EXPERINCE I WANT TO HAVE, and I got to see all the glitches and all the flaws.

The only reason critics like Biscuit, Yahtzee, and Jim Sterling are hanging around at all is partly for their entertainment value and partly because they occasionally find the really good games that aren't getting any ink. Like I know my tastes line up with Yahtzee, and when he said Paper's Please was good, I bought it and I wouldn't of known about it otherwise.

Video Games aren't like movies or Food, I can get literally a good idea of the experience just from a lets play. For fucks sake.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
hermes said:
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too?
No. I'm saying their job is obsolete. It's been phased out with the invention of Youtube and the Lets Play.

Unless you can tell me something that only a critic can tell me about a game that I can't get from watching a Youtuber play it.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Zhukov said:
That strikes me as rather petty on your part.

It doesn't effect you in the slightest if someone else gets the game for free and/or early as part of their job. You're just being envious.

Bethesda is not doing you a solid. This does not benefit you in any way. They are doing this entirely for their own benefit then justifying it with bullshit about fairness.

On the other hand, I don't mind them doing this. Publishers don't owe critics anything and this doesn't affect me since I don't bother reading reviews when I can just look up unedited gameplay on Youtube whenever I want.
If Bethesda releases a broken game, I know I'm probably going to hear about it on Twitter or Reddit or any number of places that the game is broken and has problems. I then know what I'm getting into by if I choose to buy the product.

Early reviews don't help me in anyway. But I'll tell you something that would annoy me.

Angry Joe.

I'm just using this as an example, I don't even think he got an early review copy of Mafia 3, because his review came out later. But I'm watching his review, and I'm watching him ***** and moan about the fucking skybox. Cause the friggin' clouds aren't pretty enough for him.

Now in a fantasy world were he does get that free early review copy of Mafia 3? As a hypothetical consumer that is enjoying Mafia 3 inspite of it's flaws, yeah that kinda does tick me off he gets a game for free and instead of digging how cool it is to live out a revenge fantasy of killing the KKK in the 60s he's ***** about the fucking clouds.

And on top of that? Joe did that review ON TOP OF streaming his entire playthrough of it. If you watched that stream? You didn't need to watch his review.

So I ask, in the world were Lets Plays are a thing, why do we need Game Critics?
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too?
No. I'm saying their job is obsolete. It's been phased out with the invention of Youtube and the Lets Play.

Unless you can tell me something that only a critic can tell me about a game that I can't get from watching a Youtuber play it.
Sure, I can tell you most critics job doesn't depend on Bethesda giving them free games, merchandising or direct payment, so I tend to trust them more than some "independent" kid with a soapbox.

 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
DudeistBelieve said:
YOUTUBE AND LIVESTREAMING HAVE RENDERED CRITICS AND REVIEWS OBSOLETE ON THE BROAD SCALE!
Prove it.

DudeistBelieve said:
Why do I friggin need
DudeistBelieve said:
...I can...
...I don't...
...I didn't...
...I went...
...I WANT...
...I got...
...I know my taste...
...I bought it...
Is this your idea of broad scale? Because it seems to me that you're looking at this issue purely out of a 100% selfish and narrow minded point of view. You even admitted it when you talked about reviewers getting games for free and you don't. Are you really that kind of person? I'm glad I don't know you in real life.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
DudeistBelieve said:
yeah that kinda does tick me off he gets a game for free and instead of digging how cool it is to live out a revenge fantasy of killing the KKK in the 60s he's ***** about the fucking clouds.
Oooookay.

Now you're sounding like the bad kind of fan, pissed off because someone dared to criticize a game you liked.

Should he ignore flaws, or at least what he perceives as flaws, and instead drop to his knees in gratitude for a free copy of a sub-par game that he may or may not have gotten?

That seems like it would be a disservice to his viewers.

(Also, just skimming through his review video, he did seem to like the bit about mowing down the KKK, so yeah...)

So I ask, in the world were Lets Plays are a thing, why do we need Game Critics?
We don't, or at least I don't. I said as much in the post you quoted.

Other people seem to have a use for them though. That Angry Joe review that galled you so much has over 1.6 million views, so clearly some folks are interested in what he has to say.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too?
No. I'm saying their job is obsolete. It's been phased out with the invention of Youtube and the Lets Play.

Unless you can tell me something that only a critic can tell me about a game that I can't get from watching a Youtuber play it.
Sure, I can tell you most critics job doesn't depend on Bethesda giving them free games, merchandising or direct payment, so I tend to trust them more than some "independent" kid with a soapbox.

So wait, how does the streamers opinion have any affect on this? You're sitting there watching them play the game, if you mute the audio, it be you and you alone making your own judgements.

Adam Jensen said:
DudeistBelieve said:
YOUTUBE AND LIVESTREAMING HAVE RENDERED CRITICS AND REVIEWS OBSOLETE ON THE BROAD SCALE!
Prove it.

DudeistBelieve said:
Why do I friggin need
DudeistBelieve said:
...I can...
...I don't...
...I didn't...
...I went...
...I WANT...
...I got...
...I know my taste...
...I bought it...
Is this your idea of broad scale? Because it seems to me that you're looking at this issue purely out of a 100% selfish and narrow minded point of view. You even admitted it when you talked about reviewers getting games for free and you don't. Are you really that kind of person? I'm glad I don't know you in real life.
Okay number 1, that final point is kinda an unesscary swipe don't you think? Jesus is that the way you treat people in real life?

Number 2, yeah. The whole arguement is "CRITICS INFORM THE CONSUMERS" and I'm saying, no they don't. The whole idea of a critic is that they're taking a pass at the experince first before letting you know if it's worth your time and money. And thats fine for gated experinces like food and movies, because we don't have any frame of reference of which to form our own opinions. With a movie you get a couple trailers, and thats all you can see before buying a ticket.

But If you can watch RAW gameplay footage for about an hour or two uninterrupted? You can form your own opinion just based on that. You can look at a game and go "Wow that looks worth my $60 dollars"

and I don't see anywhere were I'm being supplied a counter argument to that.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
DudeistBelieve said:
Zhukov said:
That strikes me as rather petty on your part.

It doesn't effect you in the slightest if someone else gets the game for free and/or early as part of their job. You're just being envious.

Bethesda is not doing you a solid. This does not benefit you in any way. They are doing this entirely for their own benefit then justifying it with bullshit about fairness.

On the other hand, I don't mind them doing this. Publishers don't owe critics anything and this doesn't affect me since I don't bother reading reviews when I can just look up unedited gameplay on Youtube whenever I want.
If Bethesda releases a broken game, I know I'm probably going to hear about it on Twitter or Reddit or any number of places that the game is broken and has problems. I then know what I'm getting into by if I choose to buy the product.

Early reviews don't help me in anyway. But I'll tell you something that would annoy me.

Angry Joe.

I'm just using this as an example, I don't even think he got an early review copy of Mafia 3, because his review came out later. But I'm watching his review, and I'm watching him ***** and moan about the fucking skybox. Cause the friggin' clouds aren't pretty enough for him.

Now in a fantasy world were he does get that free early review copy of Mafia 3? As a hypothetical consumer that is enjoying Mafia 3 inspite of it's flaws, yeah that kinda does tick me off he gets a game for free and instead of digging how cool it is to live out a revenge fantasy of killing the KKK in the 60s he's ***** about the fucking clouds.

And on top of that? Joe did that review ON TOP OF streaming his entire playthrough of it. If you watched that stream? You didn't need to watch his review.

So I ask, in the world were Lets Plays are a thing, why do we need Game Critics?
You are complaining about a Lets Play. The whole skybox rant was cut out from his Lets Play... So, if your point is that his Lets Play is subpar, we may be onto something there, but there is no point in calling it "a review" just because he has made reviews in the past.

And yes, I agree that reviews have become mostly redundant for people like us. The only reason they still exist is because of the reputation of those involved and to save time, which coincidentally, it matters a lot more to the general public... if you align with the opinion of Yathzee, you are likely to pay more attention to his 10 minutes review than to several hours of raw gameplay. If you are the kind of person that is willing to spend several hours of gameplay before deciding on a game, it is likely that you are informed enough to already have a good grasp of whether you are interested in the game or not (you may watch it to see how smooth it is and how well it runs, not to see which genre it is)... reviews exist for the average consumer. The one that is going to a walmart for a family gift and wants to see what is new and what is worthy, or the one that overheard a conversation between mates talking about it or saw an advertisement.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too?
No. I'm saying their job is obsolete. It's been phased out with the invention of Youtube and the Lets Play.

Unless you can tell me something that only a critic can tell me about a game that I can't get from watching a Youtuber play it.
Sure, I can tell you most critics job doesn't depend on Bethesda giving them free games, merchandising or direct payment, so I tend to trust them more than some "independent" kid with a soapbox.

So wait, how does the streamers opinion have any affect on this? You're sitting there watching them play the game, if you mute the audio, it be you and you alone making your own judgements.
So, your point is that everyone should spend hours upon hours watching random youtube videos without context on mute so that things like "how does it plays" became irrelevant, risking spoilers, without even knowing which section are they playing or even on what... and that is more informative for the general public than rotten tomatoes or a 4 paragraph text?

Yeah, sounds right...
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Zhukov said:
DudeistBelieve said:
yeah that kinda does tick me off he gets a game for free and instead of digging how cool it is to live out a revenge fantasy of killing the KKK in the 60s he's ***** about the fucking clouds.
Oooookay.

Now you're sounding like the bad kind of fan, pissed off because someone dared to criticize a game you liked.

Should he ignore flaws, or at least what he perceives as flaws, and instead drop to his knees in gratitude for a free copy of a sub-par game that he may or may not have gotten?

That seems like it would be a disservice to his viewers.

(Also, just skimming through his review video, he did seem to like the bit about mowing down the KKK, so yeah...)

So I ask, in the world were Lets Plays are a thing, why do we need Game Critics?
We don't, or at least I don't. I said as much in the post you quoted.

Other people seem to have a use for them though. That Angry Joe review that galled you so much has over 1.6 million views, so clearly some folks are interested.
It's not about being a fan of the game. That's not what annoys me.

What annoys me is this opinion Game Critics have about themselves that they are some huge nesscary component to the industry. That we as consumers somehow *NEED* them. Maybe that is out of jealousy, I feel it's more out of my hatred of the sheer arrogance of it.

And I'm getting the feeling you completely understand my argument.

as for that 1.6 million, I mean how many watched it because they were trying to make an informed purchasing decision vs the entertainment value of Joe's schtick or even hearing his opinion? All these game critics have entertainment components to them, gimmicks... I actually think Total Biscuit might be the rare straight reviewer.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too?
No. I'm saying their job is obsolete. It's been phased out with the invention of Youtube and the Lets Play.

Unless you can tell me something that only a critic can tell me about a game that I can't get from watching a Youtuber play it.
Sure, I can tell you most critics job doesn't depend on Bethesda giving them free games, merchandising or direct payment, so I tend to trust them more than some "independent" kid with a soapbox.

So wait, how does the streamers opinion have any affect on this? You're sitting there watching them play the game, if you mute the audio, it be you and you alone making your own judgements.
So, your point is that everyone should spend hours upon hours watching random youtube videos without context on mute, risking spoilers, without even knowing which section are they playing or even on what... and that is more informative for the general public than rotten tomatoes or a 4 paragraph text?

Yeah, sounds right...
One hour to two hours. Yeah. And don't scoff at that, because when were hyped for a game and we can't play it gamers do just that.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
Zhukov said:
That strikes me as rather petty on your part.

It doesn't effect you in the slightest if someone else gets the game for free and/or early as part of their job. You're just being envious.

Bethesda is not doing you a solid. This does not benefit you in any way. They are doing this entirely for their own benefit then justifying it with bullshit about fairness.

On the other hand, I don't mind them doing this. Publishers don't owe critics anything and this doesn't affect me since I don't bother reading reviews when I can just look up unedited gameplay on Youtube whenever I want.
If Bethesda releases a broken game, I know I'm probably going to hear about it on Twitter or Reddit or any number of places that the game is broken and has problems. I then know what I'm getting into by if I choose to buy the product.

Early reviews don't help me in anyway. But I'll tell you something that would annoy me.

Angry Joe.

I'm just using this as an example, I don't even think he got an early review copy of Mafia 3, because his review came out later. But I'm watching his review, and I'm watching him ***** and moan about the fucking skybox. Cause the friggin' clouds aren't pretty enough for him.

Now in a fantasy world were he does get that free early review copy of Mafia 3? As a hypothetical consumer that is enjoying Mafia 3 inspite of it's flaws, yeah that kinda does tick me off he gets a game for free and instead of digging how cool it is to live out a revenge fantasy of killing the KKK in the 60s he's ***** about the fucking clouds.

And on top of that? Joe did that review ON TOP OF streaming his entire playthrough of it. If you watched that stream? You didn't need to watch his review.

So I ask, in the world were Lets Plays are a thing, why do we need Game Critics?
You are complaining about a Lets Play. The whole skybox rant was cut out from his Lets Play... So, if your point is that his Lets Play is subpar, we may be onto something there, but there is no point in calling it "a review" just because he has made reviews in the past.

And yes, I agree that reviews have become mostly redundant for people like us. The only reason they still exist is because of the reputation of those involved and to save time, which coincidentally, it matters a lot more to the general public... if you align with the opinion of Yathzee, you are likely to pay more attention to his 10 minutes review than to several hours of raw gameplay. If you are the kind of person that is willing to spend several hours of gameplay before deciding on a game, it is likely that you are informed enough to already have a good grasp of whether you are interested in the game or not (you may watch it to see how smooth it is and how well it runs, not to see which genre it is)... reviews exist for the average consumer. The one that is going to a walmart for a family gift and wants to see what is new and what is worthy, or the one that overheard a conversation between mates talking about it or saw an advertisement.
Counter to this point? Average Consumers, the one that is going for the family gift that isn't informed? They're not getting their information from Total Biscuit. They're MAYBE asking the counter jockey, and those are also the people that pre-order games so again early reviews don't affect them cause they'll buy the crap anyway.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
So, your point about reviewers not doing a service, namely, advising consumers about games/movies before they are released is because you deserve but don't get special treatment too?
No. I'm saying their job is obsolete. It's been phased out with the invention of Youtube and the Lets Play.

Unless you can tell me something that only a critic can tell me about a game that I can't get from watching a Youtuber play it.
Sure, I can tell you most critics job doesn't depend on Bethesda giving them free games, merchandising or direct payment, so I tend to trust them more than some "independent" kid with a soapbox.

So wait, how does the streamers opinion have any affect on this? You're sitting there watching them play the game, if you mute the audio, it be you and you alone making your own judgements.
So, your point is that everyone should spend hours upon hours watching random youtube videos without context on mute, risking spoilers, without even knowing which section are they playing or even on what... and that is more informative for the general public than rotten tomatoes or a 4 paragraph text?

Yeah, sounds right...
One hour to two hours. Yeah. And don't scoff at that, because when were hyped for a game and we can't play it gamers do just that.
I don't scoff at it, but you do realize that, under that logic, reviews serve a function for people that are not willing to spend two hours watching someone else playing a game without context...
 

WindKnight

Quiet, Odd Sort.
Legacy
Jul 8, 2009
1,828
8
43
Cephiro
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
DudeistBelieve said:
What annoys me is this opinion Game Critics have about themselves that they are some huge nesscary component to the industry. That we as consumers somehow *NEED* them. Maybe that is out of jealousy, I feel it's more out of my hatred of the sheer arrogance of it.
And you'd rather the arrogance of games companies expecting you to pay $60 sight unseen for some random broken garbage they've told you is perfection and the best thing ever?

Game companies LIE. They want you misinformed. Their pushing the idea that you give them a pile of money for something you should trust them to be is what it says it is.

This is about holding back review copies from anyone who won't toe the publisher line, whether their a reviewer or youtuber so they can get away with shipping out shit to customers who don't have the information to know what their laying out for.

heres Jim Sterling take on the whole thing:

 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
DudeistBelieve said:
hermes said:
DudeistBelieve said:
Zhukov said:
That strikes me as rather petty on your part.

It doesn't effect you in the slightest if someone else gets the game for free and/or early as part of their job. You're just being envious.

Bethesda is not doing you a solid. This does not benefit you in any way. They are doing this entirely for their own benefit then justifying it with bullshit about fairness.

On the other hand, I don't mind them doing this. Publishers don't owe critics anything and this doesn't affect me since I don't bother reading reviews when I can just look up unedited gameplay on Youtube whenever I want.
If Bethesda releases a broken game, I know I'm probably going to hear about it on Twitter or Reddit or any number of places that the game is broken and has problems. I then know what I'm getting into by if I choose to buy the product.

Early reviews don't help me in anyway. But I'll tell you something that would annoy me.

Angry Joe.

I'm just using this as an example, I don't even think he got an early review copy of Mafia 3, because his review came out later. But I'm watching his review, and I'm watching him ***** and moan about the fucking skybox. Cause the friggin' clouds aren't pretty enough for him.

Now in a fantasy world were he does get that free early review copy of Mafia 3? As a hypothetical consumer that is enjoying Mafia 3 inspite of it's flaws, yeah that kinda does tick me off he gets a game for free and instead of digging how cool it is to live out a revenge fantasy of killing the KKK in the 60s he's ***** about the fucking clouds.

And on top of that? Joe did that review ON TOP OF streaming his entire playthrough of it. If you watched that stream? You didn't need to watch his review.

So I ask, in the world were Lets Plays are a thing, why do we need Game Critics?
You are complaining about a Lets Play. The whole skybox rant was cut out from his Lets Play... So, if your point is that his Lets Play is subpar, we may be onto something there, but there is no point in calling it "a review" just because he has made reviews in the past.

And yes, I agree that reviews have become mostly redundant for people like us. The only reason they still exist is because of the reputation of those involved and to save time, which coincidentally, it matters a lot more to the general public... if you align with the opinion of Yathzee, you are likely to pay more attention to his 10 minutes review than to several hours of raw gameplay. If you are the kind of person that is willing to spend several hours of gameplay before deciding on a game, it is likely that you are informed enough to already have a good grasp of whether you are interested in the game or not (you may watch it to see how smooth it is and how well it runs, not to see which genre it is)... reviews exist for the average consumer. The one that is going to a walmart for a family gift and wants to see what is new and what is worthy, or the one that overheard a conversation between mates talking about it or saw an advertisement.
Counter to this point? Average Consumers, the one that is going for the family gift that isn't informed? They're not getting their information from Total Biscuit. They're MAYBE asking the counter jockey, and those are also the people that pre-order games so again early reviews don't affect them cause they'll buy the crap anyway.
Not TotalBiscuit specifically (although, given the numbers, I would say a lot more people watch TB reviews than other people's LP), but they can get their information from rotten tomatoes and metacritic.