Them not giving review copies out makes sense now, apparently the PC port of dishonored 2 is buggy.

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
2,634
141
68
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5cqneo/bethesda_proved_the_no_pre_release_review_copies/
http://steamcommunity.com/app/403640/reviews/?browsefilter=toprated

So in classic Bethesda tradition the Game doesn't seem to be finished at least on PC. It's not as bad as other examples it's just simply Badly optimized. What do you guys think about this?
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,056
991
118
Is anyone surprised? Like....anyone at all? Like...not even hyberboly, is there literally ONE person in the entire world that thought to themselves "Yes, them not giving out review copies because they want reviewers and consumers to experience the game at the same time" was not just bullshit?

Seriously, one person? *Sigh...no Bethesda CEO guy, you don't count. One person who does not work for Bethesda.
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,636
117
68
You can fix the PC one with mods, right Bethesda fanboys? Or is that only Elder Scrolls that gets that excuse?

The PS4 one works fine from my runthrough and a half so far and I haven't heard anything weird about the Xbone. They could've just given those out, how many reviewers who would be getting copies are exclusively PC?

(I have a PC, but I can't be bothered keeping up the graphics edge to run AAA games, and hate the Xbox controller style that seems to also be the PC option)
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
I wonder if people are still tripping over each other to defend Bethesda's decision on that move now?

Or should everyone who bought the game have known better?
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,713
822
118
Country
United States
You're all missing the point sillies. Of course withholding review copies is still a good pro-consumer action for Bethesda to take. You can't run a marathon without chaffing a few nipples after all.[footnote]Best damn movie ever[/footnote]

Saying "Fuck you" to those evil, evil game journalists is worth having to deal with a buggy game or two. I also like cutting off my nose to spite my face and burning down my whole house when I find a spider. It's only logical.
 

Pirate Of PC Master race

Rambles about half of the time
Jun 14, 2013
596
0
0
We all knew it was going to be crap when they announced that they will never give out review copies with reasonable time.
I knew those scamming scammers were in on this.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Pirate Of PC Master race said:
We all knew it was going to be crap when they announced that they will never give out review copies with reasonable time.
I knew those scamming scammers were in on this.
Which sucks, because the game itself is damn good, I can run it on PC fine, but I've got a high end computer that should be blowing it away on ultra with 100+ FPS, without that the game seems to have trouble running on even low settings. From what I understand this is an issue with ID's engine, but something that should have been caught in QA, especially the bug that gets the games priority on the processor stuck to low.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Bethesda didn't make the game so expecting a buggy mess shouldn't really be expected. However, with news of a 9GB Day 1 patch, it was obvious the game wasn't quite polished when it went gold. With PCs obviously having millions of different hardware configurations, there's obviously going to be more PC issues than console issues.

Does anyone think Bethesda made this new stance so they can now release buggy games? Because their reputation is already that they make the buggiest games ever. And this new stance isn't anti-consumer for the average consumer. The state of video game criticism is absolute shit and completely useless for those (the vast majority BTW) that use IGN, Gamespot, and Metacritic. When everything is rated as GREAT, that's not helpful at all. If anything, this new stance may indeed be helpful so that you don't have those type of threads on the more popular game sites saying this game sucks because it's Metacritic is 1 point less than similar other game that just came out. I 100% agree that not allowing reviews before release is anti-consumer WHEN there is a proper criticism within the medium, but there isn't in video games so CURRENTLY it is not very anti-consumer.

I know most people on this site are far different from the average gamer to where you probably have a not very known (meaning much smaller than IGN) critic or LPer that you actually trust so you are actually hurt somewhat by this new Bethesda policy. But at the same time if you normally bought a Fallout or Elder Scrolls on Day 1, it wasn't because reviews said it wasn't buggy. I think any educated gamer knew exactly what they were getting with Dishonored 2 and there was really nothing surprising about the game if you just used some basic common sense.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Bethesda didn't make the game so expecting a buggy mess shouldn't really be expected. However, with news of a 9GB Day 1 patch, it was obvious the game wasn't quite polished when it went gold. With PCs obviously having millions of different hardware configurations, there's obviously going to be more PC issues than console issues.

Does anyone think Bethesda made this new stance so they can now release buggy games? Because their reputation is already that they make the buggiest games ever. And this new stance isn't anti-consumer for the average consumer. The state of video game criticism is absolute shit and completely useless for those (the vast majority BTW) that use IGN, Gamespot, and Metacritic. When everything is rated as GREAT, that's not helpful at all. If anything, this new stance may indeed be helpful so that you don't have those type of threads on the more popular game sites saying this game sucks because it's Metacritic is 1 point less than similar other game that just came out. I 100% agree that not allowing reviews before release is anti-consumer WHEN there is a proper criticism within the medium, but there isn't in video games so CURRENTLY it is not very anti-consumer.

I know most people on this site are far different from the average gamer to where you probably have a not very known (meaning much smaller than IGN) critic or LPer that you actually trust so you are actually hurt somewhat by this new Bethesda policy. But at the same time if you normally bought a Fallout or Elder Scrolls on Day 1, it wasn't because reviews said it wasn't buggy. I think any educated gamer knew exactly what they were getting with Dishonored 2 and there was really nothing surprising about the game if you just used some basic common sense.
Even informed people could have been surprised this time, Bethesda games are known to be buggy, as in games made by the developer bethesda. This is not a Bethesda game, this is a game made by Arkane studios and published by Zenimax that renamed itself bethesda publishing.

So far, games published by Bethesda have not really been that buggy, not like elder Scrolls and Fallout games, Doom and Wolfenstein were mostly problem free, so was Dishonored 1, people expect Fallout and Elder Scrolls to be buggy, not literally any game Bethesda publishes.

It's still anti-consumer, your opinion on games reviews notwithstanding, because even the state of reviewing currently would have caught the bugginess of this game before release, so it did hurt consumers judging by the number of returns on Steam and the general surprise at the state of the game, people that are familiar with Dishonored 1 expected similar performance, as both the developer and the publisher are the same.

There really isn't any basic common sense that would indicate that this release would be buggy, especially among informed gamers, for one, its not actually made by Bethesda, and the first game, published by the same publisher, did not have these issues, and Bethesda's previous release with no early review copies, Doom, released very stable on PC, and only had a mediocre multiplayer holding it back.

The only people that saw this coming are people that think any and every Bethesda game is buggy by default, unaware that the developer and the publisher are two different entities, so people confusing Fallout and Elder Scrolls for the entirety of the publisher's properties, not realizing that Arkane's first game was very stable, and Doom and Wolfenstein were both stable as well, even their shitty games like Rage and Rogue Warrior were stable on release.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
erttheking said:
I wonder if people are still tripping over each other to defend Bethesda's decision on that move now?
Of course they are. Even more than before. You don't truly expect people to change their opinion on the internet, do you?
 

Benpasko

New member
Jul 3, 2011
498
0
0
I love the irony of every single person in this thread going "Of course Bethesda fanboys will still defend it" when literally no one has posted anything trying to defend it. Never change, escapist.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,400
2,200
118
Country
United States
Benpasko said:
I love the irony of every single person in this thread going "Of course Bethesda fanboys will still defend it" when literally no one has posted anything trying to defend it. Never change, escapist.
Except for the guy three posts up, sure.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,713
822
118
Country
United States
Benpasko said:
I love the irony of every single person in this thread going "Of course Bethesda fanboys will still defend it" when literally no one has posted anything trying to defend it. Never change, escapist.
Few people are talking about Bethesda fanboys. We're mostly all talking about the crowd that cheered Bethesda announcing review copies are a thing of the past (feel free to check out the threads on that topic to see examples).
 

StatusNil

New member
Oct 5, 2014
534
0
0
Oh come on. It's a PC version thing, right? They could have just handed out console copies for review and basked in the glowing reviews like the good pro-consumer folks at, say, Warner. Remember Arkham Knight?

Let's not confuse issues here. Caveat emptor is ever the watchword.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Seth Carter said:
(I have a PC, but I can't be bothered keeping up the graphics edge to run AAA games, and hate the Xbox controller style that seems to also be the PC option)
For the record, unless your problem is with the fact that games use Xbox controller prompts, it's always been possible to use... basically any controller you like on a PC. Of course, not all of them have the greatest support, but if you've got a PS4 then it's pretty easy to set one of those controllers up to just emulate an Xinput controller, which will cover the vast majority of modern PC games. And the ones it won't are usually either trash ports or came out at a time when their control scheme was completely bonkers on the PC anyway (so many games from the '90s...).
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
StatusNil said:
Oh come on. It's a PC version thing, right? They could have just handed out console copies for review and basked in the glowing reviews like the good pro-consumer folks at, say, Warner. Remember Arkham Knight?

Let's not confuse issues here. Caveat emptor is ever the watchword.
Not sure how that makes any sense, their policy is still the issue here, if they only handed out console review copies then it would be a slightly different issue but no less damaging to PC consumers, the root is still that their review copy policy is potentially harmful to their customers for exactly scenarios like this, where stuff that would have been easily caught by reviewers goes unannounced until the last second because nobody had the game early.

Caveat emptor is an old phrase from a time when someone could roll into town on a buggy and claim sugar water could cure syphilis and make you better looking, and your only recourse if you fell for it was to hope he came back so the towns folk could tar and feather him. We have information and regulation available to use now, and while we don't need the law to step in in this scenario, I do not think it is out of line to criticize Bethesda for a policy that creates situations like this.

Caveat Emptor says nothing about how the consumer should react to deceptive practices, just like the snake oil salesman still gets run out of town whether the people buy his products or not, so too does Bethesda deserve criticism for its practices whether consumers fall for them or not.
 

Lufia Erim

New member
Mar 13, 2015
1,420
0
0
But it's a Bethesda game. Their games being buggy is half the charm. It gives the PC modding community something to do. I mean at this point it's like complaining that it's cold in winter.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Well, sure.

Nobody said back then that their move not to give review copies didn't make sense... Just that it was an anti-consumer stance and their letter to justify that "everyone should experience it at the same time" was a bunch of bullshit.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I love my Bethesda games (tho in this case, Bethesda is the publisher, Arkane is actually the developer), and will buy them without pause. Until now. This new review policy is so completely anti-consumer, I cannot believe it's Bethesda enforcing it. Like they've always been, to me, pretty gamer friendly. Granted PC is now relegated to second-class, but that's been the case with all other studios for years, so it's unfortunate but unsurprising.

But this review policy is utterly anti-consumer, to hide potential flaws and bad press away until the last possible minute. Pre-orders are now completely "sight unseen". It's a horrible practise they would do well to reconsider. I will never pre-order from them again while this new policy is in force. I pre-ordered/bought every Bethesda game since Morrowind, and may continue to in the future, but it will *not* be until well after reviews are out.

There's no positive spin on witholding review copies, it's utterly anti-consumer and I shan't pre-order from any company with such a policy.
 

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
StatusNil said:
Oh come on. It's a PC version thing, right? They could have just handed out console copies for review and basked in the glowing reviews like the good pro-consumer folks at, say, Warner. Remember Arkham Knight?

Let's not confuse issues here. Caveat emptor is ever the watchword.
Ignoring the fact that caveat emptor pretty much hasn't applied in most countries law for decades, I'm pretty sure the argument becomes null when companies are actively taking steps to prevent customers from being informed pre-purchase by, say, preventing reviews coming out before launch.