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

[DudeistBelieve]

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:

But it's not UNSEEN, Windknight, unless I'm foolish enough to preorder it. Which, okay I'm not above doing depending the title, but I know going in these days thats a gamble. You don't even need to wait a week, 3 days and the truth will be plastered everywhere just like it was with the Batman Arkham Knight PC Release.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

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No. I'm saying their job is obsolete.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...

On that point, I will concede.

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.

They can, but again I don't think casual gamers care about reviews. These are the people that are like the guy I work with at my job, he buys every call of duty that comes out.

They see the commericals, "Heres the new thing! look how much fun it is! Buy it!" and then they do. I doubt they even know what company publishes it.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

Meh.

Prettymuch everyone likes to feel needed. The market will determine if they are or not. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

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

Do I? Because my sincere understanding is that your argument is driven by petty jealousy.

If I am correct in that understanding then... yay?

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?

I have no idea.

Why does it matter? He's providing content that people clearly want to consume, regardless of their reasons.

(For the record I consider Joe a straight shooter, but I find his Youtube screamer antics nigh unbearable. Watching a grown man work himself into a frenzy over a buggy video game is just embarrassing. It's even worse than TotalBiscuit's petulant whining.)

 

[WindKnight]

But it's not UNSEEN, Windknight, unless I'm foolish enough to preorder it. Which, okay I'm not above doing depending the title, but I know going in these days thats a gamble. You don't even need to wait a week, 3 days and the truth will be plastered everywhere just like it was with the Batman Arkham Knight PC Release.

And what the masses who will buy on release day unless they have the knowledge to KNOW the title is not worth the money? And how long till these misinformed customers decide that modern day AAA gaming is a crock of shite they can do without BECAUSE of how the publisher WANT them to be misinformed enough to buy crap sight unseen?

This is the kind of stuff that will kill the industry, short sighted greed and selfishness, and to be OK with that because some people you don't like don't get review copies to stop it happening... that says you're really not looking at the big picture.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

But it's not UNSEEN, Windknight, unless I'm foolish enough to preorder it. Which, okay I'm not above doing depending the title, but I know going in these days thats a gamble. You don't even need to wait a week, 3 days and the truth will be plastered everywhere just like it was with the Batman Arkham Knight PC Release.

And what the masses who will buy on release day unless they have the knowledge to KNOW the title is not worth the money? And how long till these misinformed customers decide that modern day AAA gaming is a crock of shite they can do without BECAUSE of how the publisher WANT them to be misinformed enough to buy crap sight unseen?

This is the kind of stuff that will kill the industry, short sighted greed and selfishness, and to be OK with that because some people you don't like don't get review copies to stop it happening... that says you're really not looking at the big picture.

Those masses who buy it on day one are the ones who get burned but don't learn their lesson and keep pre-ordering it. Maybe not all of them, but enough of them. Thats the only reason the pre-order culture keeps perpetuating. If people learned the first time they got burned not to pre-order there wouldn't be all these massive upfront sales still.

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.

Meh.

Prettymuch everyone likes to feel needed. The market will determine if they are or not. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

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

Do I? Because my sincere understanding is that your argument is driven by petty jealousy.

If I am correct in that understanding then... yay?

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?

I have no idea.

Why does it matter? He's providing content that people clearly want to consume, regardless of their reasons.

(For the record I consider Joe a straight shooter, but I find his Youtube screamer antics nigh unbearable. Watching a grown man work himself into a frenzy over a buggy video game is just embarrassing. It's even worse than TotalBiscuit's petulant whining.)

Jealousy.... annoyed at the sheer arrogance in overvaluing their place and role in the games industry.... more or less, I'll take it. Whats fueling my argument isn't as important to me as much as my argument making sense, and I can sense you at least understand my view and that's enough. /Thread

 

[hermes]

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...

On that point, I will concede.

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.

They can, but again I don't think casual gamers care about reviews. These are the people that are like the guy I work with at my job, he buys every call of duty that comes out.

They see the commericals, "Heres the new thing! look how much fun it is! Buy it!" and then they do. I doubt they even know what company publishes it.

True, but reviews, specifically reviews of newly released games, serve a double function: To inform of what something is like and to inform of what is new. They work for people that don't actively follow games and movies news, but want to buy something/have some time off and go to rotten tomatoes, metacritic or their site of choice (which, if it includes reviews, usually has them ordered by date. That is not coincidental) to see what has been released and, among those, what is worth buying/seeing before hitting the store/theater...

But I digress. since you are clearly changing your stance when one doesn't stick... This started with "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...gets it for free and a week early to boot" that clearly indicated you were upset because you didn't get special treatment over people that work on something, that reviewers are somehow people that don't like games, or your opinion has more value because you "actually want to play and enjoy" it; to "because when were hyped for a game and we can't play it gamers do just that" that clearly indicates you are hyped enough to buy the game regardless of any early warning (so... yeah Bethesda, I guess you win). Or reviews being redundant in a world with LP (but not early LP, mind you), which has some merits but is a different conversation to be had, especially not punctuated by "hours of watching videos in mute" as if it were the bare minimum consumers need to do to get to an informed decision... that is Paul Feig "you should not watch trailers, you should watch the entire movie before deciding if you may like it or not" levels of cyclical reasoning.

And yes, this is punctuated by a video that proved that people were willing to jump to outrageous conclusions to justify someone not liking Fallout 4 during the release window, while being paid by Bethesda and shown brandishing its merchandise... So, yeah. I do see an issue in this particular example, as they are the kind of company I would ever call "pro-consumer".

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

At the very least this makes me feel justified in not buying Bethesda titles at launch anymore. I don't these guys get it. It seems to me that they're mad over the fact that the beloved Metascores of their biggest releases like Doom and Fallout 4 have gone from 90s averages to 80s, mostly for design or technical reasons. The thing is withholding review copies won't solve that. It shows a lack of introspection and discipline, essentially taking their ball and going home. I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to release review copies at all soon.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Okay, so you watched an hour or two of a livestream to get a feel for a game before buying, good for you. Now what happens when the fatal error crashes the game in hour three, the memory leak slows things to a crawl in hour four, or the story decides to bury itself in its own asshole in hour five? You really gonna by fine with Mass Effect 3-2: Electric Boogaloo? I seem to recall that ending causing everybody fits.

Still feeling pretty good about that $60?

I grew up in the age of Nintendo Power, matured in the age of "first ever review of the game that just came out". Getting a review based on the reviewer slamming through the game as quickly as possible before vomiting on a page so that their site/channel/blog has the first review on the Internet made for shitty reviews.

I'm saddened by the number of people supporting a blatantly anti-consumer move based entirely on the reasoning of "it hurts game reviewers too".

 

[NPC009]

I think there will always be a place for reviews as there are many important things Let's Plays or raw footage can't cover (properly).

For instance: stories and characters. 30 minutes of footage may give you a sample of the quality and tone of the writing, but it won't tell you anything about the story as a whole. Do the characters get any good development? Are there any dumb plottwist that could hurt the experience? Raw footage won't tell you. A Let's Player could, but they'll show everything, spoiling everything you may have wanted to experience for yourself. Meanwhile, a reviewer can paint the big picture without spoiling important moments or developments.

Or how about stuff like difficulty and game length? Raw footage won't tell you much about either unless you can get a good idea of the skills of the player. A Let's Play will show you everything, eventually, but it may take hours before you recieve those nuggets of info. Most reviews can be read/watched in 5-15 minutes.

And then there's a particular skill set good reviewers possess: they can explain in a clear, concise and often entertaining manner what to expect of the game. Let's Plays are mostly about reacting to or guiding through. Raw footage is just... raw footage.

In my opinion, the best way to inform yourself as a consumer it to the resourches available but use them responsibly. Read/watch several reviews, look up some raw footage, maybe watch the first episode of a Let's Play. Get the best of all worlds.

Anyway, back to Bethesda. I think what they're doing will only hurt players and perhaps themselves. Ideally, publishers of games like the ones Bethesda is know for will give our review copies weeks in advance. That way critics get to play through the entire game (or atleast make a brace attempt at doing so). For instance, I got to put in ~100 hours into Xenoblade Chronicles X before I had to hand in my review, which was published a week before the releasedate of the game. There was so much I was able to share with readers thanks to that. Both good and bad.

And in case you're thinking I'm an awful person for getting to play games like Xenoblade Chronicles X early: it's my job and that jobs pays terribly. Seriously, reviews of long games are often a labor of love, because if you calculate what you're actually making, you'll end up with hourly wages of less than 5 bucks. Much less than 5 bucks, in some cases. The free hate you get from butthurt fans on the internet does not make up for it. And really, while it may seem fun to get games early, in the end it doesn't make any difference beyond your deadline. I played the game, you played the game, everyone played the game, why give a shit?

 

[WeepingAngels]

OP sounds jealous that people who review games, so others can have an idea what they are paying for, get free and early games. That's petty. Maybe I think that people that work at restaurants should not get free food but it isn't hurting me. I don't actually think that though. Bethesda is hurting the consumer here and it will bite them in the end.

 

[BaronVH]

I must agree with the OP. I understand. For one thing, it is a business decision. When a movie has built in buzz, that studio will not provide advance reviews. They have nothing to gain but everything to lose. Tons of people will see Rogue One with no reviews out. If tons of reviews hit early and say it is bad, that will affect the box office. If a movie is unknown and the studio knows it is creative and well done, they allow early reviews. One other aspect of games is that early reviews are often created with incomplete games. The other huge point in agreeing with Bethesda is many reviewers are biased one way or the other. I have no problem waiting on a few trusted reviews if it is one I have doubts about. I also understand the counter which is games are not like films. Games often take well over ten hours to form an opinion, something movies do not have. Also, games are often completed prior to release, the 'gone gold' point, so purely single player games should get out early.

In all fairness, my opinion is skewed from reliance on bad reviews. I was interested in Alien Isolation, and I read a very negative review on IGN. After Jim Sterling's review, I bought it and found it to be the best movie adaptation game ever made. IGN almost caused me to not experience one of the best games of this generation, so I always take reviews with a grain of salt.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Reviews exist to fight a company?s instinctual desire to False Advertise. Pre-sale reviews do just that. By removing pre-sales reviews, Bethesda is opening the door to push False Advertisements onto their player base, who (such as you OP) support and don?t care about False Advertisement.

Want to know why reviews are needed to fight False Advertisements? Because video games do not have the ability to be refunded. And Steam?s ?refund? capacity is a failure. 2 hours of gameplay, when problems happen more often than not after those 2 hours.

Look at No Man?s Sky, that is the gold standard of False Advertisement, yet how many people shat on people wanting to punish Hello Games and Sony for their blatant ?hyping? of the game? A vast majority of news sites and gamers did, that?s what. So when other companies see that False Advertisement is okay, and reviews no longer exist, you?ll get garbage.

And since you support False Advertisement so much, clearly when garbage comes out you?ll state loudly and proudly that that garbage is actually a masterpiece and anyone who says otherwise deserves to be silenced.

 

[BaronVH]

There will always be manipulative advertising, and much of what you say, Insanity, I agree with. Even with great games, companies do some shady stuff. Take Shadow of Mordor: they actually got busted paying people to hustle the game. And that was a fantastic game. Of course this happens everywhere. There are shill reviews all over Amazon and the internet for anything you can buy. I do think gamers tend to be a little more sophisticated in sniffing it out. Great case in point was No Man's Sky. I saw that coming from a mile away. How? Small number of developers making a game with vast promises but no real gameplay releases. There are also some developers that I feel I can trust such as Blizzard. I may not be interested in every game they make, but I know it will be quality if is something I am interested in. I do think Bethesda is a developer that you will know where you stand. Big, open world do your own thing game with bugs. Some people love them. Some hate. I just know to be wary of vast promises. Best example was Hellgate London. Oh, and if I sniff out an bunch of microtransactions, I will stay away no matter the reviews. Case in point: Evolve.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Really? We're defending this now? Even championing it?

I mean, consumers can do whatever they want for whatever reasons they want, I just find it odd to applaud a company for hiding their products from critics. Is this like a "we hate the critics in their ivory towers, bravo to the common man" populist insanity thing? I'm confused.

 

[BaronVH]

I am not defending it, but I do understand it. There is good logic when the game has significant components tied to online, like Doom. How can a review be accurate before it's live? I think fully single player games, like Skyrim, do not have that justification. Therefore, if no advance review disks are sent out, I will wait to buy. I will confirm if the delay was due to game being crap, or that the developer thought the demand was so high it did not warrant early release. Once I am satisfied, I will buy. The worst case for me is a delay and best case the saving of money. If the game is actually good, worst case for developer is the loss of sales. The developer has no benefit if the game is good, so I will wait.

 

[MHR]

Oh cmon. Yeah I think consumers getting screwed over by this policy is mostly their own fault, but we can't pretend like this is a good thing.

 

[MHR]

I am not defending it, but I do understand it. There is good logic when the game has significant components tied to online, like Doom. How can a review be accurate before it's live? I think fully single player games, like Skyrim, do not have that justification.

Doom singleplayer has no significant online components. Doom multiplayer beta was out before review copies and it was absolute trash. If anything they'd be doing themselves a favor by letting reviewers calm everyone down by letting them know the single-player was actually good.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

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?

If by treat you mean avoid, then yes I do. In real life I avoid people like you.

Number 2, yeah. The whole arguement is "CRITICS INFORM THE CONSUMERS" and I'm saying, no they don't.

Like I said, you need to prove this. There are plenty of reviewers that I trust and they do a far better job at informing me about a game than watching a two hour let's play.

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.

What if the raw gameplay footage happens to be really dull and I end up thinking that the entire game is dull as the result? Or the opposite, first couple of hours are fun and then the game falls apart. I want to know this. You can't form an opinion on the whole based on a few bits devoid of any context. There are reviewers that can provide me with a lot more information than that because they had the time to play the game from start to finish. A Let's Play is useless in that regard. I can't form a very clear opinion based on a few hours of gameplay alone.

Besides, a lot of people find Let's Plays dull. I hate watching other people play games. If I had to watch a Let's Play of the first Witcher game, I never would have bought it. I bought it because reviewers I trusted said that it's one of the best PC games ever made and they gave me enough reasons to suspect that they might be right. And they were right. Because of that I fell in love with that series and now it's my favorite game series of all time.

 

[CaitSeith]

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.

And the publishers bank on the total opposite with the average consumer. And you know what? They have been in-the-money!

*sigh*

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

THEN WHY NO MAN'S SKY HYPE TRAIN DISASTER OF 2016 HAPPENED!? RECEN.. *ahem* Recent events prove that Youtube and Livestreaming isn't enough. No one cancels pre-orders for bad games when no one can make gameplay videos before release. Yes, you know, I know and a lot of people knows that pre-ordering is a foolish gamble. Well, fools make the broad scale.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

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.

And the publishers bank on the total opposite with the average consumer. And you know what? They have been in-the-money!

*sigh*

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

THEN WHY NO MAN'S SKY HYPE TRAIN DISASTER OF 2016 HAPPENED!? RECEN.. *ahem* Recent events prove that Youtube and Livestreaming isn't enough. No one cancels pre-orders for bad games when no one can make gameplay videos before release. Yes, you know, I know and a lot of people knows that pre-ordering is a foolish gamble. Well, fools make the broad scale.

Because people are morons that hyped themselves up into a frenzy and believed that this game could cure death?

This is just my opinion, but I think if one is the type of person who pre-orders one is equally not one that would be swayed by games criticism. In fact that happened with No Mans Sky as well, were people who spoke anything bad about the game possibly NOT living up to expectations by it's rabid fanbase.

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?

If by treat you mean avoid, then yes I do. In real life I avoid people like you.

I mean announcing it.