Jimquisition: Review Embargoes And Why They're Okay Sometimes

[Doug]

Interesting POV Jim, I hadn't thought about the (non-evil) marketing reasons why game publishers/devs might want to hold off reviews coming out until close too or on launch day (evil reasons: pre-orders are not cancelled, etc).

TotalBiscuit did a video on this recently, didn't know it was being talked about much.

I suppose, when an embargo is in place, its ok, if for the right reasons.

BTW: Despite my efforts to stop myself, I have pre-ordered a game.

Jim,
who art in America,
hallowed be thy opinions,
I have sinned and wish you're forgiveness.
Thank God for You.

(as a note, its Civ: Beyond Earth, super eager to play it).

I only saw how his argument benefits Publishers and Reviewers, but not really the consumer (ie. us).

True, I do agree that is the case, but I think its one of those things that doesn't really hurt us either, when used in non shitty ways.

* If your worried about wasting money, wait until the embargo is over and get it on the day of release (or last minute preorder there is an advantage to doing so, like reduced cost).

* If you're a smaller dev, then an extra big day of coverage is going to help tons in getting knowledge of your game spread. And longer term, more dev's succeeding without really dirty tricks -should- be consumer positive. (I admit this point isn't directly consumer positive, but I feel the argument is still valid overall).

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Having a review deadline is good, it makes for fair chance for all outlets that want to review it have a chance.

However, setting it for the day of launch or any time after, I always consider a dick move. Pre order or no, if I want to know if the game may be worth picking up day one because I don't want all copies to disappear (which in NZ can happen, as I have encountered that more then once) otherwise you may not see my sale at all.

When there are other games that want me to know things a little before release so I can try make an informed decision, why take the risk? The answer seems to be, so you can try pull a fast one over people that pre order. This is why I pre order only a select few titles. At least allow reviews a couple days before release, that can't that huge an ask. People would prefer a week, but two to three days means there is a chance for people to research it.

Review embargoes make sense, but when too close or past release, still seem like a shitty practice to me. In the end, they only serve to help the critics and publishers, I don't see any advantage they give the consumer aside from reviews being non-exclusive so you don't think it's heavily biased right off the bat.

 

[atavax]

One problem is multiplayer games. You never properly review them because the multiplayer population doesn't exist before launch. But people still play and review multiplayer games before launch. And more and more games are incorporating social features into a game that can't really be judged in the barren pre launch landscape.

Another thing is there aren't enough reviewers and by giving established reviewers early access, they are making it a hostile environment for new people to compete.


Also, while many can disapprove of the practice of publishers withholding early access from some reviewers, as long as this system exists, there is no real incentive for publishers not to.

Really the whole importance on getting the game immediately is negative for the industry as a whole and early access and early reviews contribute to this problem as reviews offer publicity so is a tool get those pre orders and day one purchases. Destiny for example made $500 million opening day. Which basically means Acitivision made $500 million in 1 day from a demo and spending a ton on marketing and none of it was from the quality of the game past what was available in the 'beta'. If as an industry we want to focus on having good games, and not heavily marketed games, we need to remove emphasis from getting games super early.

 

[Kittyhawk]

I know many are loving Destiny, but that game has left a sour taste about Activision. That game isn't what it should be.

But who knows, hopefully they can turn things around like FFXIV did.

 

[Thoraxington]

This is a bit off topic but it is something I have wanted to know for a while now. What the hell happened between Jim and Konami?

He made this video http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5524-Konami and Konami got pissed and blacklisted him.

Why aren't more people talking about this? "Der Corruption" is a big topic right now, so why isn't anyone getting pissed off at Konami when there's proof of them dicking over Jim?

That just makes me thank god for Jim that much more.

 

[axys]

Thank God for Jim!

 

[Demonchaser27]

2. Journalist aren't attached to Dev/Pubs like a leash. Meaning some form of enforcement (or discount) to make sure all qualified reviewers can get a copy for review. If not this, then at the very list illegality of blacklisting and still requirement for qualified reviewers to get a copy for review. At this point, a time where you often can't try before you buy or return goods whether buggy, damaged, lied about or just outright shit, reviews should be looked upon as a required consumer good. They should be treated as the balance against the marketing forces of entertainment goods. There really isn't any excuse why a publisher should be able to actively harm both the reviewers and consumers by saying "You didn't do what we wanted/give us the score we wanted, your blacklisted".

And as a perfect recent example of all this, Destiny has had an embargo essentially set after release (yes they got the copies but what good is that if you aren't allowed to play the damn game). It's getting to a point that some new laws might have to be made just for some fucking consumer protections against the fraudulent activities of these corporations.

Good luck convincing the U.S. government to actually enforce anything like that, you would be lucky if it didn't die in committee, the U.S. government takes a very caveat emptor (buyer beware) approach to any consumer product that doesn't effect physical safety or health. Reviews are protected from copyright infringement under fair use, but there is very little regulation beyond that, the government sees it as the consumers responsibility to inform themselves and the review industry is a free market enterprise that is providing a non-essential consumer service based on subjective quality of a non-essential good.

The EU is a little more on the consumer side, with laws stating that even software should be returnable for a refund, and generally stricter laws on false advertisement, but even then, the consumer review industry is still not seen as an essential consumer service, and you would have a hard time convincing them that view should be changed.

Luxury items are generally not very strictly regulated in any fashion, as it is seen as the buyers responsibility to inform themselves, especially if the product has a minimal risk of causing physical harm or issues.

Yeah, I'm aware of it. It's why I generally disagree with Embargoes though, all the power on the corporations side and none of it on the consumer side. The US is a fucked place. Your allowed to lie, cheat, and practically steal people's money at this point. I do generally like the EU's policies on this issue though. See, because of what I said in that section, "At this point, a time where you often can't try before you buy or return goods whether buggy, damaged, lied about or just outright shit, reviews should be looked upon as a required consumer good." In the EU, as you stated, they can return things as is required by law to be upheld. This makes reviews not as essential of a service/good. It's not perfect but its a much better protection than what consumers have here.

On the plus side too, it can go a long ways in weaving out crap games. I mean honestly, how much of this Early Access garbage would actually succeed if people could return their games after being lied to the entire time? Almost none of it. If they actually were required to keep their promises it would be hard to screw people. The only reason the US is such a big consumer culture/market and a favorite for shopping malls and the like is because it's so easy for a corporation to con people out of their money with no recompense here. I've all but given up faith on US. EU might be going in the right direction. Because I think one thing that the founding fathers and many capitalist supporters failed to realize is that simply allowing people to be screwed over isn't enough to thicken their skin, and if they do? Well a whole new generation of over-trusting teens full of hormones and a need to fit in who have no experience getting screwed over just turned 18 yesterday. So there's the big problem right there. That's why we need protections. Could I convince the government, probably not. But the case is definitely there for sound-minded people to make. Particularly if we get into psychology.

 

[LivingHitokiri]

This is a bit off topic but it is something I have wanted to know for a while now. What the hell happened between Jim and Konami?

He made this video http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5524-Konami and Konami got pissed and blacklisted him.

Why aren't more people talking about this? "Der Corruption" is a big topic right now, so why isn't anyone getting pissed off at Konami when there's proof of them dicking over Jim?

That just makes me thank god for Jim that much more.

Because trying to focus on everything at same time wont help you achieve nothing.
Focus on improving something specific and then build around it.
Journalists in my opinion are they key to make that happen hence why i believe the focus should be there first.
Thats how i see it, i maybe be wrong but i do not underestimate the people that got a huge voice and influence a lot of people.

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

The problem is the blacklisting. Not the act of choosing to post a review before a publisher's 'embargo' ends.

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.

...Or you could wait for the review.

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.

Agreed. I never buy games until I've seen a lot of reviews and footage of them. I can't afford to spend 60 dollars on something I might not even like. It honestly boggles my mind that people still pre-order games when so many people have gotten burned by them.

 

[Strazdas]

See, the problems with embargo is not that they are sooner or later to launch date, its that they... exist. embargos have aboslutely no reason to exist and you SHOULD break them and EVERYONE should breka them because embargos shouldnt be a thing.

 

[Melaphont]

I see a really easy solution to this, go by gameplay video's or lets plays, stop going by reviews and go by watching with your eyes.

 

[Thoraxington]

This is a bit off topic but it is something I have wanted to know for a while now. What the hell happened between Jim and Konami?

He made this video http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5524-Konami and Konami got pissed and blacklisted him.

Why aren't more people talking about this? "Der Corruption" is a big topic right now, so why isn't anyone getting pissed off at Konami when there's proof of them dicking over Jim?

That just makes me thank god for Jim that much more.

Because trying to focus on everything at same time wont help you achieve nothing.
Focus on improving something specific and then build around it.
Journalists in my opinion are they key to make that happen hence why i believe the focus should be there first.
Thats how i see it, i maybe be wrong but i do not underestimate the people that got a huge voice and influence a lot of people.

So lets make a bigger deal out of companies blacklisting journalists. That's a small thing that can have bigger consequences if enough people ***** about it.

 

[RicoADF]

It would do a lot to make sure Developers/Publishers make better products since they know they won't be able to hide behind Pre-orders with no repercussions (remember we can almost never really return games, even if they lie to us in advertising).

That depends on where you live, here in Australia you can indeed return a game which has been falsely advertised (and I have done it). Also GoG.com and Origin both offer return policies for all users, so it's not impossible depending on your location and store you purchase from.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

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.

Ooooh! I totally missed that one since i'm not playing on a console since... a very long time.

Did it bomb spectacularly? giddygiddy, please tell me?

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

Ooooh! I totally missed that one since i'm not playing on a console since... a very long time.

Did it bomb spectacularly? giddygiddy, please tell me?

Of course it didn't bomb, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the marketing campaign. However, for the most expensive game of all time to get a middling 75ish on metacritic with people calling it boring is a disaster.

Jim bashed it up in his review of it too.

See, despite the extensive closed and open beta periods, Bungie didn't send out review copies to reviewers until the release day, effectively embargoing the game to SEVERAL DAYS AFTER RELEASE. A classic way to fleece people who preordered before they find out the truth.

Worse, Bungie laughably claimed that early reviews were wrong before they were even out, AND that the game doesn't get good until you play it for 20 hours.

A sure sign of a trap waiting to happen.

 

[Biran53]

Solution is don't pre order. Ever. Its a sinister business practice that hardly benefits the player in any way. It allows publishers to be more concerend with getting you to buy the game while not actually making anything worth purchasing. It also solves this embargo issue. It then would only serve as a means to get honest criticism out of popular sites.

 

[bojac6]

Embargo's aren't journalism the moment you sign one you become a PR man.

I suppose you also think a journalist protecting an anonymous source is also just a PR man? The relationship for access is key to journalism, whether it's games or working at the White House. It's why certain reporters continually get the same key stories, because they've proven that they can be trusted not to reveal sources or to provide a fair report. It's why the film industry has such a stark distinction between reviewers, who have access, and "journalists" (paparazzi) who don't. Once a reviewer stops playing ball, they're not really useful to the consumer or the publisher.

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.

Or the consumer could refuse to pre-order anything until the first reviews come out. That'd put market pressure on the problem.


...also I'm really enjoying playing Destiny, but that's neither here nor there. It reminds me of college when we'd co-op Halo all the time.

 

[kaocrat]

There are a lot of things which should become standard practice across the board in terms of the formatting of game reviews. Somewhere near the top of the article there should be a section which discloses the hardware the game was reviewed on and maybe the circumstances in which it was reviewed (i.e. if it was reviewed at a "Review event" vs at the office vs at the reviewer's home). It might even make sense to disclose what kind of display is being used (this will become more important in the future as games add support for 3d displays, head mounted displays, etc). I would also like to know whether or not a review copy of the game is being played with or without all of the day-1-DLC unlocked. I know some sites do some of these things sometimes, but I would really like to see it as a consistent standard because it would go a long way towards making good use of the review.

Other things which should be reported in *every* review, either as part of a checklist on the sidebar or in the body of the review:

? How the save system works
? How the DRM works
? Whether or not cutscenes can be skipped
? Whether or not cutscenes can be paused
? Whether or not cutscenes can be replayed
? Which difficulty settings are available at start, and which must be unlocked
? Any gifts the reviewer received from the publisher

If a games review site were to consistently implement these standards into their reviews, they could break all the embargoes they want to and get blacklisted by every publisher, and it wouldn't matter, because I would always wait for their review to come out before buying any game.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Or the consumer could refuse to pre-order anything until the first reviews come out. That'd put market pressure on the problem.

...also I'm really enjoying playing Destiny, but that's neither here nor there. It reminds me of college when we'd co-op Halo all the time.

Hey, *I* don't preorder anymore. But publishers have countered this by locking content out UNLESS you preorder, which is a despicable practice of its own.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

DeepSilver and Nintendo are really confident in their games (for damn good reasons) so they don't have any problems with giving you enough time to review it. They know/believe that you will enjoy it so they will give it. Activision on the other hand is confident that it will sell, but they aren't confident in the actually quality of the game, which sometimes makes no sense because despite not liking CoD, I think it's a well made game.

And then there is Konami as you said... oh well, it's Konami. You really don't need to say anything more than just Konami and it's all clear.