That's not what I mean. Those games were infamous for being buggy, broken messes. They weren't worth picking up day 1, because, especially with Arkham Knight, you probably couldn't even play it.NPC009 said:Loonyyy said:No. But it'd be nice to have a heads up before an Asscreed Unity or Arkham Knight drops.NPC009 said:Well, I guess more info could be gained from interviews, but companies have every right to say no to those and very few indivuals would be willing to risk their job so the masses can hear about the new AssCreed setting early.
Companies announce games months, often years in advance with or without the involvement of the press. It's to their advantage to keep the consumer aware of their product.
The way the press works now, we don't know about that until launch.
Unity had a review embargo in place until the noon of launchday: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/assassins-creed-unity-embargo/
Even if the reviews covered the massive technical failings of the game (And not all of them did), nobody got to hear about it until after a bunch of people had bought it.
There was minor controversy about how late review code went out for some reviewers on Arkham Knight as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/06/11/batman-arkham-knight-review-copies-wont-go-out-until-launch/
Yeah, and that makes sense. But there's two important things here: The press must be free to be negative. If we've got people refusing to be negative for fear of losing the ability to have a review ready for launch, or get any response to their queries, then we all suffer for it.Like I said before, if a company is both subject and source, press releases will be a big part of news. What the press should do, is be critical towards both subject and source. Obtaining those press releases and sharing them in a manner that's useful to readers, that is their service towards their readers.The way the press works at present, they regurgitate the releases the company wants,
And they don't necessarily need to cover everything the publishers want. I know this one is less likely, but reproducing every bit of advertising just makes you an advertiser.
You know, it's really rude to snip that out of it's context, to misrepresent it.Well, yeah, that's when people want to read reviews, not weeks after.they write a review to release at launch,
I've already made clear why blocking outlets from review copies is poor. It prevents them from releasing a timely review. They can buy it on their own (Kotaku certainly can), and race through it on launch day and put out a poorly edited review, without footage, that skims over the game (Like used to happen very often), or they can wait, and release a complete, useless review, after the majority of sales have occurred.
What you've cut this out from is the symbiotic relationship with the publisher. Again, look at Unity. The sites got their reviews, Ubi released their game, and they deliberately prevented anyone from spilling the beans on how broken it was to make money off the midnight launches, preorders, and day 1 sales. The journalists win, Ubi wins, gamers got fucked.
I don't care if they got screwed because they were foolish enough to preorder. Ubisoft made a bad game, and behaved attrociously, and profited. Meanwhile, someone who just wanted to entertain themselves wasted an exorbitant amount of money on a game that wasn't worth buying.
Don't get me wrong. Review embargoes aren't necessarily a bad thing. Review embargoes that extend to post-launch, are a bad thing.Of course it's nice to publish reviews a little earlier, but you can't do that if you don't have access to an early copy. The press has to rely on publishers for that, and to be honest, embargoes aren't all bad. For instance, the European one for Xenoblade Chronicles X is 30 nov, half a week before release. Many reviewers have had their digital copy for over a week now. They're okay with us sharing impressions before that. All Nintendo of Europe wants is that the reviews are concentrated around launch to optimise the amount of attention the game gets. This is good for readers, because they should be able to read thorough reviews right on time. It's also nice for the critics, because we have don't have to rush through the game (or only sample a small portion of it!) to get the clicks we need to stay alive. In cases like this everyone wins.
I'm not taking that risk.If you decide to buy a game before it's even out, that's your responsibility. No one is forcing you to take that risk.and them once the Publisher has raked in all of the preorder and Day 1 sales money, the gamer, the reader, gets fucked in the ass by both of them.
I don't buy games before they come out, and I don't complain about getting shafted by them. I haven't preordered in years.
That does not change the fact that the job of the journalists who cover these games is meant to be to help gamers make informed decisions and not make poor purchases, based in part on hype and PR promoted on those very sites.
This is just blatantly anti-consumer. Hide behind blaming them if you will, but you're just defending people getting paid for making broken games. That's seriously weak.
And I agree. It's hard. Because people want the hype. I did try to make that clear. People want to hear this stuff, they want to know about upcoming games, even when it's just CGI trailers, "Teasers" for larger trailers, "Vertical Slices" and impressions from ridiculous pre-release events.And at the same time that's the kind of thing people like reading about. If the press is there to serve the reader, shouldn't they atleast share the facts?The journalists report on the trailers, the announcements, the goodies in the Special Editions, get people hyped up and preordering, reap the traffic of all that, and then the review, and the publisher gets some lovely coverage (Which is what they want). At present, what we get is what hype wants, which is what both publisher wants first, and what we want second. It should be us first, and that annoys the publisher, too bad.
I don't think we'll ever see the back of it, but it'd be nice if this advertising were at least alongside some critical content that helps the reader.
Yeah, and that's the thing. At the end of the day, we're looking for information about videogames, because we love videogames. We're the best audience to market videogame advertising too, and sometimes we even enjoy it *cough* E3 *cough*.Yep, that bolded part, that's a big part of the problem. Even if the press is critical, it's no use if the readers aren't.There's not a massive amount of investigative or boundary pushing stuff that can be done, but we should all be a little disappointed with the state of things at present. At present, they don't take a critical eye to those releases. Look at this site. There's a bunch of cookie cutter reports every day with a link to another site which wrote on it originally, and it's all press material that the publishers want us to see. For one, ideally we shouldn't see every bit of hype being reported on. This drip feed of advertising. Obviously that's not going to happen. Someone wants to read it, and it's going to be there. We're our own worst enemy like that.
Not particularly. The things they get blacklisted for tend to be more than that. For instance, Kotaku still reported on Fallout 4. Trailers, speculation, review. Of course they do, because Fallout 4 is big, and it's worth a lot of traffic. Kotaku needs Fallout 4, and Bethesda does need coverage, but they can get that everywhere. And they did. A lot of that coverage from Kotaku comes from going over someone else's article on the press release. What this blacklisting does is prevents the most important information coming out, and gives us only the advertising and hype. Ironically enough, they got blacklisted for reporting the same stuff, pointless hype.I doubt it. There's a whole spectrum of stances you can take towards press releases, and the right one depends of the release and the publication. Some publications prefer to stick to the facts ('The new trailer shows a new playable character. She wields two swords.'), others go for the enthousiastic fan approach ('Her dual-wielding style looks promising and we'd love to test it ourselves'.), or even cautionary ('She wields two swords. Sadly, the series does not have a good track record with this style.'). Unless you're consistently unreasonably critical (as in, focusing only on the negative and stirring baseless controversy), publishers have little reason to put you on their ignore-list, because they need the press, perhaps even more than the press needs them.
There's been many noted cases of interference like this. There was the Jeff Gerstmann getting canned because his review of Kane and Lynch wasn't high enough, and the publishers had significant ad money invested in the site. There's Jim Sterling getting blacklisted by Konami for reporting negatively on some of their releases and talking about the conditions at the company (Which by all accounts, seem to be abominable).
What this is, is a publisher trying to exert undue control over a publication, and hurting our ability to get good information. And on the flipside, what Kotaku was doing is stupid, hypey bullshit, not even worth it, not worth them getting blacklisted over, and on Bethesda's part, it shouldn't be enough of a problem for them to blacklist them.
I'll be blunt: Fuck Kotaku. They're shit. But if they go under, it should be because people stop being fucked to read their shit, not because they're edged out by publishers who want someone they can control better.