Jimquisition: Review Embargoes And Why They're Okay Sometimes
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Embargos have always bugged me especially when it's a game that I'm on the fence about. What's even worse prebuying a digital game and learning it's crap before you play it. But jim makes a point about embargos, while a reviewer can break it to warn the public, which we would all be grateful for, he/she would be blacklisted by the industry and basically be commiting suicide.
Not to bring #GamerGate into this, because Jim doesn't want to comment on that anymore, but doesn't the idea you're offering Jim kinda' reinforce what the protesters mean? The gist of embargoes, as I understood it, was 'trust us, we're not corrupt' and that's about it. I mean yes you did say no favors for reviews, but again, we're only taking your word for it. Now I do trust YOU specifically not to, but the industry as a whole? Are we supposed to look at the obvious backdoor dealing here, review copies, free games/consoles, private time with producers, etc...and just shrug and say 'doh well, that's how it goes."
Isn't the whole idea of 'self-regulating journalism' one of the problems the #GamerGate crowd is pushing against?
Isn't the whole idea of 'self-regulating journalism' one of the problems the #GamerGate crowd is pushing against?
I never seen the controversy over review embargo, mostly because it's too easy for press to turn it back on the corporations.
I'm sorry, but review copies are absolutely necessary, how else are sites like The Escapist supposed to get a decent review out for a game's release date (at the very latest) if the publisher doesn't send them a copy before then? It's no different to film critics like MovieBob going to free press screenings of movies a week or two in advance. It's all part of the process, and it is mutually beneficial for all parties involved (developers, publishers, reviewers and the audience) to keep that process going. And the same really applies to games consoles.Silentpony said:
If i paid attention to review scores i would have missed out on a few good games. Just buy the games that take your interest.
I still find review embargoes a bit disagreeable.
Reviews, as they are on this and many other sites, are still consumer oriented and as such already serve as marketing for the reviewed game. Embargoes, as they're defended here, only seem to be the stifling of that (marketing) information...for further marketing reasons.
With the current flow of game releases these days, I'm also of the mind that if you're not hearing about a game (or forgetting about a game you've read an early or natural review for) , it's probably either not big or it's not to your tastes.
Reviews, as they are on this and many other sites, are still consumer oriented and as such already serve as marketing for the reviewed game. Embargoes, as they're defended here, only seem to be the stifling of that (marketing) information...for further marketing reasons.
With the current flow of game releases these days, I'm also of the mind that if you're not hearing about a game (or forgetting about a game you've read an early or natural review for) , it's probably either not big or it's not to your tastes.
The problem is the blacklisting. Not the act of choosing to post a review before a publisher's 'embargo' ends.Jman1236 said:
So do we just go ahead and take it, or try to change it?
Publishers exerting control over an industry they should have no business manipulating is not something we should just shrug at. But at the same time, I'm not sure what can be done when the problem is already highly widespread.
"Keep the public from realizing potential flaws in our game until they already have it" is not and should not be a legitimate marketing strategy.
01.24 I?m very disappointed Jim, Guo Jia is a much better strategist than Zhuge Liang, his death is pretty much the only thing stopping cao cao from taking over china, and his weapon is a cue stick that shoots magic pool balls at enemies. #I stand with Guo Jia
I don?t really have a issue with review embargoes, as long as the embargo is lifted before the game is released, or at least lifted on the actual release day.
I don?t really have a issue with review embargoes, as long as the embargo is lifted before the game is released, or at least lifted on the actual release day.
...Or you could wait for the review.Solaire of Astora said:
Outlets like the Escapist need developers more than developers need the Escapist. Without the Escapist's, developers still have content to peddle. Without developers' support; the Escapist doesn't.
If the attitude is 'don't buy in to the marketing machine'...then...don't. Don't pre-order anything and don't buy anything until you've seen a review. Worst case scenario: you buy the game the day after launch.
Heh, I had a fly on my screen that Jim was staring at. Then I swatted it and he looked away.
For no reason at all that made my day.
For no reason at all that made my day.
I definitely understand that, but the fact that publishers and developers have so much influence just gets under my skin a little. Maybe too much, I admit.senordesol said:
The idea of an embargo really isn't terrible, but when most big publishers use it, I can't ever believe that it's for a good reason.
I've sort of fallen out of the triple-A hype machine that sometimes pervades gaming these days, so I mostly just purchase niche or RPG titles that I know will be at least good based on their pedigree. And I'm guilty of sometimes preordering these games, but they don't get the same absolutely stupid amount of marketing hype buildup.
For a consumer. How to stop wasting money on shitty games (almost all of the time) and how to be immune from launch day review embargoes. Stop pre-ordering games, and wait for a review whenever it comes out.
Your problems are now solved. You're welcome.
Your problems are now solved. You're welcome.
... I'm not going to lie, it's really comforting to have good ol' Jim back and not harassed-by-gamergate-stuff Jim like we had for the past couple weeks.
Unfortunately Destiny just showed us why they're abused.
A review embargo should never, EVER be on or after the release date, because it shows complete insecurity in your product and a desire to fleece people who preordered it before they find out the truth.
Like what just happened with Destiny.
A review embargo should never, EVER be on or after the release date, because it shows complete insecurity in your product and a desire to fleece people who preordered it before they find out the truth.
Like what just happened with Destiny.
Maybe? I dunno...wasn't there a problem with the review copies of Watch_Dogs running better than the commercial copies? I mean if I was making a game, I'd make damn sure the critics got a better copy of the game than the standard one.Kmadden2004 said:
Also I'm still not sold on free games and consoles. I mean the biggest question all gamers ask of a game 'is it worth buying?'. And how would a critic who doesn't pay for anything ever be able to judge that?! Yes, their opinion isn't tainted by the knowledge this game was an investment, but for everyone else? Hell yeah its important!
Does GTA V have better character development than the Witcher II? Oh who the hell cares!
Are they worth buying? With real money that I have to work for? That's should be the most important factor for a game, not if the water reflects light or if the gameplay feels repetitive.
I can tell you this too; if I got shit for free, I'd give it a kinder review. If Toyota and Ford gave me free cars and asked me to write a review, I couldn't distance myself from the fact I didn't pay $40,000 for it. The nitpicks don't matter!
Unfortunately publishers/developers have absolutely no obligation to provide any early access to anyone if they don't want to. If the press wants in on the action they will have to play ball. I don't like it either, but short of choosing not to play ball with them (and sending them a message in doing so) there's nothing that can be done about it.Solaire of Astora said: