Bethesda Will Only Send Out Review Copies One Day Early
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
You'd get exactly the same result (reviewers hurrying to finish playing and writing) if you sent out review copies ten days earlier, or thirty days, or four months. It's like they're not even trying to make it sound believable.
Somewhere, Jeff Gerstmann is crying.
Somewhere, Jeff Gerstmann is crying.
Not really. There's a thing called a review embargo. If you publish a review before they say you can, you'll never get any more review copies. Of course you still have to write a reasonable number of reviews, but however fast you are, your reviews will not come out ahead of anyone elses and if your review makes people wonder whether you've actually played the game, you'll lose traffic to those who played it properly.Recusant said:
Does anybody else remember the days of rushed reviews skipping over important details and generally being shit? I remember the days of rushed reviews skipping over important details and generally being shit.
Uh huh. This late embargo nonsense always strikes me as a massive lack of confidence from a publisher in their game, as if they're trying to hide it for as long as possible to trick more people into pre-ordering. Not sure why Bethesda would have that issue given their track record but that's still what it looks like to me because I can't see any other explanation for keeping everyone in the dark so long on releases. It'd be nice to think this somehow reduced the number of people pre-ordering their games with people waiting for reviews to go up instead but I somehow doubt it'll even make a dent there.
I'm just trying to figure out the logic they used to get from A to B on this.Steven Bogos said:
Due to the multiplayer beta being lackluster and the fact that there were no early review copies sent out people were fearful of Doom's quality. So now they want the same apprehension around all of their new releases?
Is it just that they want people to be pleasantly surprised every time or do they want to institute this policy so the occasional stinker gets in there without a review as well? I don't understand how Doom being good following a lack of transparency leads to this decision. Maybe that's why I don't have an MBA *shrugs*
Bethesda once again showing their insecurities. Hey guys, this isn't going to stop speculation about your games being grossly flawed. It makes me wonder if they're just mad that theire Metascore average has gone from 90s to 80s. In which case they'd best get the hell over it and stop coasting on their past achievements.
I'm sure there will be more of this. Publishers are going to favor YouTubers going forward. They're going to pick streamers they know will deliver the expected level of positive and effusive commentary (or at the very least, not say anything negative). They'll feed previews and early review code to streammers they deem to be "fans," hoping the streams will essentially be free advertising.pookie101 said:
It's a shame too. I think there are some really good streamers out there that are doing excellent criticism/reviews. But the way that companies like Bethesda are playing favorites with YouTubers who they think can be counted on to toe the line, it's going to be tough for people to determine which YouTubers are objective and trustworthy, and which are happily acting as extensions of the publisher's marketing team.
P.S. On the subject of YouTubers, just a quick reminder that we STILL don't know who the other YouTubers were in the WB/Shadow of Mordor FTC case (besides PewDiePie), and we don't know if WB has has pulled this crap with other games, or if the marketing firm involved with WB has done similar campaigns with other game companies/titles, among other questions. And it doesn't seem like very many people care, which is a shame.
Eh. There are two kinds of customers: Those who will buy the game at launch or pre-order it regardless of what any critics say, and those who will wait until the critics have weighed in before buying even if it means waiting a week or more. This isn't hurting either group, really. There has never been any real incentive to have started playing the game the very day it hits stores. I honestly wouldn't mind the entire industry just giving up on free review copies entirely. This isn't like movies where the film is completely finished months in advance and the theaters need to get butts in the seats on opening weekend.
Good job publishers, you're doing everything in your power to ensure that I absolutely don't buy your game. I'm thrilled with the amount of money I'm saving by not indulging in one of my favorite hobbies.
But that has nothing to do with what I said. If you send out all the review copies at the same time, regardless of what time that is, all the reviewers have the same amount of time to play the game. That was my point, that it doesn't work as a justification for Zenimax's move here.Bad Jim said:
If that's true and NO ONE, including YouTubers, gets review copies before that data, then yes, it's "fair" in the sense that everyone who is going to get the game will get it at the same time. But since we know of at least one YouTuber that's already received Skyrim The Special Edition, I don't have a lot of faith that this will be a fair process.Recusant said:
Their logic seems to be "we threw this live grenade into a crowd and it turned out to be a free candy dispenser. So people should be happy the next time we throw a live grenade into a crowd!"JUMBO PALACE said:
If you do something shady and it turns out to have a good result, that neither excuses your shady action nor gives you carte blanche to do it again.
Eh if I thought game reviews were a big important thing I'd care. Outside of being warned of something majorly outside expectations, really don't think they'd matter to me much.
Apathy is what allows this shit to continue, but I have to say I really don't care. In my view, getting shafted on a day 1 purchase is the individual's own fault. Have some patience.
I smelled rotten fish when I heard Doom copies weren't going to get reviewed, and I played the multiplayer beta and it was ASS. so I waited a couple days to buy it after hearing everybody loved it.
For Skyrim Remastered, It's Skyrim. If you were expecting anything else, nobody is sorry to disappoint you. Reviews for it wouldn't mean much.
I smelled rotten fish when I heard Doom copies weren't going to get reviewed, and I played the multiplayer beta and it was ASS. so I waited a couple days to buy it after hearing everybody loved it.
For Skyrim Remastered, It's Skyrim. If you were expecting anything else, nobody is sorry to disappoint you. Reviews for it wouldn't mean much.
Actually, it does have everything to with what you said. Publishers often send out review copies early (2 months before release or so) then give them a review embargo to 2 weeks prior to release. That gives them more than one month to experience the game with plenty of time to write the review so reviewers won't have to rush their reviews.Recusant said:
For a good game it can be beneficial for both the publisher, the reviewers and the consumers.
I'm going to quote myself. "Pre-order games if you like to." Not saying you shouldn't be critical, but have you ever decided that you like/dislike a game purely based on someone else's opinion? Reviews are good for filtering out the utter garbage, not for finding your favourite games.ciasteczkowyp said: