Poll: Why do game reviewers get the game early?

[Conza]

And further more, should they be allowed to? I kinda understand why, it's so they have time to put the review out 'as soon as' the game comes out (which only benefits people who are on the fence because anyone who doesn't want to have massive spoilers will avoid reviews at all costs until they've finished the game), but is this valid?

Why don't they have to be restricted like the rest of us? Car reviewers (Motor Journalists) also get cars early, but that's different, people most people don't want to be surprised by cars, yet like games, potential customers would also like to know more about the product before buying it.

I might've answered my own question in there, but I'm going to try to make it into a discussion, and as usual, add a poll because I love polls.

Bloody escapist! No poll damn it!

 

[Plucky]

I assume it's for publicity, sending a copy to game reviewers early lets them play the game and judge it, in trade for mentioning it in their magazines and such, a £30-40 game to a reviewer could equal to thousands of pounds in increased sales...assuming that they're only handing games to the reviewers and not paying them in large amounts of cash to review it. (if that did happen, that means they're being payed twice, by the publishers of the magazine and the game developer).


But ya, giving a free game to a reviewer so that they'll play and rate it would probably make more potencial money than spending a fortune on creating large advertisements, more reviews, the better.

 

[LookingGlass]

I seem to have the exact opposite opinions to you.

1. I wholeheartedly approve of reviewers getting the game early. It allows the careful consumer to make a well-informed decision and still obtain the game on launch day. That is definitely a huge win for the consumers.

2. I don't really understand why publishers do it. Everything else they do seems designed to get you (the potential customer) to ride the marketing hype train right up to the pre-order register. I understand that they want publicity, but particularly for mediocre games (and there are plenty of those), there are going to be plenty of potential sales (from people who might have bought the game on day based on developer reputation, or trailers) lost due to poor reviews. Seems like they might be better off giving them the game too late to review it prior to release, thus getting both publicity and first-day sales from those who couldn't wait to find out if it's worth it. But hey, maybe the "there's no such thing as bad press" thing applies here, somehow.

 

[Erana]

"You're livelihood is in giving products like mine publicity? I like you, have some stuff and do your thing."

Its as simple as that. It benefits the publishers to do this, so they do it. Its the driving force in everything they do.

 

[veloper]

"You're livelihood is in giving products like mine publicity? I like you, have some stuff and do your thing."

Its as simple as that. It benefits the publishers to do this, so they do it. Its the driving force in everything they do.

Very eloquent.
I'll add that the way I see it, everyone benefits from this setup. The careful consumer can still read the lines between the title of the review and the 90% score and find out about the game.

 

[Epona]

Are you jealous that reviewers get games earlier? I can see no other reason for this complaint.

 

[Zhukov]

But hey, maybe the "there's no such thing as bad press" thing applies here, somehow.

A publisher, or indeed any vendor, would prefer for you to know about their product in a bad way than to not know about it at all.

People can't buy something they don't know exists.

 

[BoogityBoogityMan]

The real question is why do some reviews get it early, while others don't. And the answer is: to influence reviews.

It is a form review manipulation. That's why I can guarantee that any big release from one of the big publishing houses will get at least 85% on metacritic regardless of game quality.

Gamingsites rely on traffic to generate income, and if they don't have their 'ME3' or whatever the flavor of the week is one page one, day one, they lose money, period.

Game reviews for big name games are 98% bull. A sensible consumer will wait a month, read the 2% reviews that come out late that aren't bull, and check out customer comments on Amazon etc. And publishers absolutely do not want that to happen, because gaming sales are driven by hype.

 

[Smiley Face]

It's so they can properly review the game by the time it comes out. It lets the publisher get better publicity, makes the review IMMEDIATELY relevant for everyone who's interested in knowing whether a new game is good, which is pretty much everyone who watches reviews.

Why don't they have to be restricted like the rest of us? Car reviewers (Motor Journalists) also get cars early, but that's different, people most people don't want to be surprised by cars, yet like games, potential customers would also like to know more about the product before buying it.

What do you mean, "have to be restricted"? Seriously, it's not like those of us who're waiting are being unfairly and maliciously punished. They give them games early so they can promote those games in time to generate hype for the general public, that's it. And the 'surprise' point doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, as most reviews make an effort not to spoil too much, and if you're not willing to accept that, then you just have a problem with all reviews ever.

 

[Strain42]

For the same reason Film Critics have special advanced screenings. So that someone who is unsure about a product can get a professional critique of something as soon as possible, which can sway earlier sales, which are some of the most important numbers.

You often hear about how a film performed on opening weekend, games usually measure their biggest sales during the first week or month.

 

[him over there]

"Well I need to learn about this game and it wouldn't hurt to hear someone who is a little more well versed in videogames opinion on it to help me decide. Oh shit they won't be able to tell me until two weeks after the game is out. Damnit."

Pretty much that. The same reason film critics have advanced screenings, to tell you the critics opinions and review scores the on opening day.

 

[Conza]

It's so they can properly review the game by the time it comes out. It lets the publisher get better publicity, makes the review IMMEDIATELY relevant for everyone who's interested in knowing whether a new game is good, which is pretty much everyone who watches reviews.

Why don't they have to be restricted like the rest of us? Car reviewers (Motor Journalists) also get cars early, but that's different, people most people don't want to be surprised by cars, yet like games, potential customers would also like to know more about the product before buying it.

What do you mean, "have to be restricted"? Seriously, it's not like those of us who're waiting are being unfairly and maliciously punished. They give them games early so they can promote those games in time to generate hype for the general public, that's it. And the 'surprise' point doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, as most reviews make an effort not to spoil too much, and if you're not willing to accept that, then you just have a problem with all reviews ever.

Well we are restricted, and potentially punished, there was an undisclosed spoiler for Mass Effect 3 in the latest escapist s**tcast, and it has totally put a downer on the game for me, hopefully the woman was simply wrong, but if she's correct, I would've rather she just kept her trap shut, and let me be disappointed when I play the game, not hang on to that disappointment and hope it dissipates with my own perspective.

I'm willing to accept that 'some' review 'try' not to spoil it, but let's face it, they hardly ever succeed, the good ones anyway, its near impossible to have no spoilers, so I don't see why they can't have the same restrictions as the rest of us.

 

[Smiley Face]

It's so they can properly review the game by the time it comes out. It lets the publisher get better publicity, makes the review IMMEDIATELY relevant for everyone who's interested in knowing whether a new game is good, which is pretty much everyone who watches reviews.

Why don't they have to be restricted like the rest of us? Car reviewers (Motor Journalists) also get cars early, but that's different, people most people don't want to be surprised by cars, yet like games, potential customers would also like to know more about the product before buying it.

What do you mean, "have to be restricted"? Seriously, it's not like those of us who're waiting are being unfairly and maliciously punished. They give them games early so they can promote those games in time to generate hype for the general public, that's it. And the 'surprise' point doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, as most reviews make an effort not to spoil too much, and if you're not willing to accept that, then you just have a problem with all reviews ever.

Well we are restricted, and potentially punished, there was an undisclosed spoiler for Mass Effect 3 in the latest escapist s**tcast, and it has totally put a downer on the game for me, hopefully the woman was simply wrong, but if she's correct, I would've rather she just kept her trap shut, and let me be disappointed when I play the game, not hang on to that disappointment and hope it dissipates with my own perspective.

I'm willing to accept that 'some' review 'try' not to spoil it, but let's face it, they hardly ever succeed, the good ones anyway, its near impossible to have no spoilers, so I don't see why they can't have the same restrictions as the rest of us.

But what you said doesn't make any sense - by watching a review of something you don't know about yet, you are knowingly taking a risk that it will contain spoilers. That's how they work. The level will vary from review to review. You weren't 'punished' by listening to the podcast - You willingly listened to an hour and a half long hunk of discussion that had MASS EFFECT in big capital letters on it, and the fact that some of the folks had spoiler-knowledge of Mass Effect was put forward in the first 5-10 minutes or so - you brought it on yourself if you got a spoiler you didn't want.

On the other hand, other people don't MIND spoilers if it means they can get the other benefits of an early review. Some people even WANT spoilers. It's a way of alleviating these 'restrictions' you keep going on about - they get to know some stuff about the game, remove the anticipation, etc. Now, if you don't want that, you don't have to do it, but that's your choice, don't force it on everyone else, just be more prudent when you go exposing yourself to this stuff.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, why do film companies show films to critics early? It will be the same reason, I think: so people who are on the fence (of which there are many) know if they want to get it the first day. I don't complain, since it is loads more convenient for the consumer, which is always a plus.

 

[Conza]

It's so they can properly review the game by the time it comes out. It lets the publisher get better publicity, makes the review IMMEDIATELY relevant for everyone who's interested in knowing whether a new game is good, which is pretty much everyone who watches reviews.

Why don't they have to be restricted like the rest of us? Car reviewers (Motor Journalists) also get cars early, but that's different, people most people don't want to be surprised by cars, yet like games, potential customers would also like to know more about the product before buying it.

What do you mean, "have to be restricted"? Seriously, it's not like those of us who're waiting are being unfairly and maliciously punished. They give them games early so they can promote those games in time to generate hype for the general public, that's it. And the 'surprise' point doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, as most reviews make an effort not to spoil too much, and if you're not willing to accept that, then you just have a problem with all reviews ever.

Well we are restricted, and potentially punished, there was an undisclosed spoiler for Mass Effect 3 in the latest escapist s**tcast, and it has totally put a downer on the game for me, hopefully the woman was simply wrong, but if she's correct, I would've rather she just kept her trap shut, and let me be disappointed when I play the game, not hang on to that disappointment and hope it dissipates with my own perspective.

I'm willing to accept that 'some' review 'try' not to spoil it, but let's face it, they hardly ever succeed, the good ones anyway, its near impossible to have no spoilers, so I don't see why they can't have the same restrictions as the rest of us.

But what you said doesn't make any sense - by watching a review of something you don't know about yet, you are knowingly taking a risk that it will contain spoilers. That's how they work. The level will vary from review to review. You weren't 'punished' by listening to the podcast - You willingly listened to an hour and a half long hunk of discussion that had MASS EFFECT in big capital letters on it, and the fact that some of the folks had spoiler-knowledge of Mass Effect was put forward in the first 5-10 minutes or so - you brought it on yourself if you got a spoiler you didn't want.

On the other hand, other people don't MIND spoilers if it means they can get the other benefits of an early review. Some people even WANT spoilers. It's a way of alleviating these 'restrictions' you keep going on about - they get to know some stuff about the game, remove the anticipation, etc. Now, if you don't want that, you don't have to do it, but that's your choice, don't force it on everyone else, just be more prudent when you go exposing yourself to this stuff.

It didn't say 'Mass Effect 3 spoilers' it said 1 and 2, which is fine for me since we all played it.

This is getting off topic, the point is, should they be allowed to get the games early? Why not just get them on day-1 like everyone else? What's their justification? Publicity for the game? Most reviews now are completely bought, 7/10 is really 5/10, 8/10 is really a 6/10, 9s are 7s 9.5s are 8s and 10s are 9s, so who really loses if the review comes out a few days after the game? People who 'might' buy the game won't be buying it on the first day anyway, they have to find the review, read/watch it, then decide to get the game.

 

[Smiley Face]

This is getting off topic, the point is, should they be allowed to get the games early? Why not just get them on day-1 like everyone else? What's their justification? Publicity for the game? Most reviews now are completely bought, 7/10 is really 5/10, 8/10 is really a 6/10, 9s are 7s 9.5s are 8s and 10s are 9s, so who really loses if the review comes out a few days after the game? People who 'might' buy the game won't be buying it on the first day anyway, they have to find the review, read/watch it, then decide to get the game.

So, your argument as to why they shouldn't be able to have early access to make reviews is because reviews are worthless? I disagree. The thing is, when I look at a review, I don't really look at the 'whatever/10' - that's a good early warning system for poor game quality, that's it. What I pay attention to are the specific areas they criticize and praise, why some things work and some things don't. Some salient points of information are ultimately going to emerge which I can make a decision on, even if it's not what the review is saying. I've seen rave reviews which convince me not to get the game because it seems to focus too much on stuff I don't like, and put-down reviews that have convinced me to get games, because they dismissed it becase of stuff I didn't really care for. So I would say that reviews very much DO have value.

And as for your 'on the fence' people argument, it doesn't pan out. You say that 'on the fencers' won't buy it day one even with early reviews, but they WILL buy it sooner than they would have otherwise, which increases the early sales figures for the game, which is pretty important for those companies. And I have made on-the-fence decisions within the first couple of days of release, so from personal experience, your argument doesn't hold water.

And furthermore... why not? Why let them have it early? Even if there's the slightest, SLIGHTEST, possibility of a benefit, which I'm pretty sure I've shown there could be, what are the downsides that would make it a bad idea?

 

[IPunchWithMyFists]

I personally get review copies all the time (except downloadable stuff, no one gets early copies of downloadable games) and I'll be honest, it's pretty neat. I dig having the games early, a few of them I try to beat even before they come out, but truth be told, once you have it, it becomes work.

I'm not rolling around in games thinking MWAHAHAHA NEWEST REVIEW COPY AND YOU CANT HAVE IT, they are work and they become work. Beating Kirby's Return To Dreamland a day before it came out? Pretty goddamn cool. Having to take apart a game meant to be mindless, fat-free fun and gently analyze it from the inside out like it's full of nitro-glycerin and then being told that you're wrong even though all reviews are subjective, it spoils your pleasure a little.

Don't worry too much guys.

EDITED: I changed 'free review copies of downloadable games' to early copies.

EDITED AGAIN: Mentioned review copies were free. Sounded like a gloating 'i get free games' toolbag.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

So the reviewers get a chance to give their impressions on the game. Also, it allows potential buyers to learn about a game before they purchase it or reserve it. It doesn't affect me, really; I would just be dead set to buy a game on launch date (reserve it) or wait to buy it later.

 

[Zhukov]

... there was an undisclosed spoiler for Mass Effect 3 in the latest escapist s**tcast, and it has totally put a downer on the game for me, hopefully the woman was simply wrong, but if she's correct, I would've rather she just kept her trap shut...

What spoiler was that? I listened to the podcast and didn't hear anything of the kind.

(You can put it in tags if you want to spare other people.)

...

Also, "shitcast". Seriously? An opinion is an opinion, but that's just childish.