General Gaming Review Outlets and Review Copies

[Bacon]

The internet has been talking about how review outlets aren't getting review copies of Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. A few things have been brought up in this discussion but I am curious about D1Ps opinion on 2 points. 

 

1. Do you think it is wrong to exclude specific outlets?
2. Are review outlets of large enough prestige entitled to review copies?

 

For point 1, I believe it is fair to exclude specific outlets. It will probably make the devs or publisher look bad, but I have never looked disfavorably towards a dev/pub that has done this. Now, that is usually because it is Kotaku who is being excluded but I have always kind of hated major review outlets and don't mind seeing them get fucked over. I would be more interested in seeing people like NeverKnowsBest or Noah Caldwell-Gervais obtaining review copies so they could push out a video essay ASAP assuming that is something they would be interested in doing.

 

Point 2 is something I already kind of addressed. It is good for the consumer that review outlets receive review copies so that we know ahead of time if the game is legitimately bad or not among other things. As long as the game is good, it is smart for devs/pubs to send out review copies to boost sales. A good game only benefits from good reviews. However, are places like IGN or Kotaku actually entitled to receive review copies? It should be obvious that I think not. When I see Games Journos having a fit that they haven't gotten their review copy, that's just proof to me that they aren't entitled to a review copy. I am biased against corporate review outlets so my take is hardly fair but fuck'em. My bias is also why I'm interested in hearing the opinion of D1P.

 

What say you?

[gamer.tv]

Reviewers should get games so they can put their data towards the metacritic algorithm so people don’t buy a shit show, day one, without being reliably informed.

[Fizzzzle]

I don't really care. When people have so much FOMO that they HAVE to get a game day 1,  it's like... that's a risk you're willing to take. You could just wait a week or so for reviews. The game isn't going anywhere.

[Biggie]

10 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

I don't really care. When people have so much FOMO that they HAVE to get a game day 1,  it's like... that's a risk you're willing to take. You could just wait a week or so for reviews. The game isn't going anywhere.

I love buying games day 1.  Reviews hardly ever sway me one way or another. I just play what I want. 

[Brian]

When I see review shenanigans, I am immediately suspicious. With horrible/absent return policies, it makes sense for publishers to hold back to get as many Day 1s it can on a stinker. 
 

I do feel for reviewers that need these copies for its business. It must be pretty stressful knowing a big release is coming out and you don’t have a copy.

 

Personally, I don’t watch/read any publications reviews anymore. I like to look at open critic to see the aggregated score and maybe a couple of blurbs then rely on user impressions. 

[best3444]

If a game isn't available for review at or a little bit before release, big red flags the game is trash. 

[Keyser_Soze]

I think reviews already get a reputation for getting paid off, at least on certain sites. So if you withhold the review copy it's suspicious. If you withhold the review copy from everyone it's even more suspicious.

 

That being said I think a review would be more honest if the reviewer had to buy it. Getting a free game is greasing the wheels a bit, once you put some skin in the game (paying for it) then you're really going to give some honest thoughts.

 

Overall though, I don't really care about reviews. My eyes when I see the previews are the review, seeing someone else play it is a review. Unless it's not a slam dunk that it's going to be good then reviews aren't too helpful imo.

[skillzdadirecta]

I would care if I thought videogame reviews were actually useful but more often than not they aren't. At the very least, a videogame review should tell me if the game works or not but they get THAT shit wrong all the time. Cyberpunk was embrassing for CD Projeckt Red but it should have been just as embarassing for videogame reviewers as well who gushed all over it  when it came out. That's just one example... most people on here know I don't give a flying fuck what someone on the internet has to say about a game regardless of who they work for. I've enjoyed plenty of games reviewers and gamers have shat on... let's not pretend like biases don't exist because they absolutely do. So does group think. I enjoyed Gotham Knights despite the general response to that game because I actually bothered to play it.  I played the Suicide Squad alpha and enjoyed the gameplay and the story... my reservations came from the live service stuff which I think could actually kill the game because of how forced it feels. Not sure if I'm gonna buy this day one or wait for a price drop, but I AM going to eventually get it. They should probably try to get this on gamepass as soon as possible so folks can play it and make up their own minds. Otherwise this could end up being anothe Avengers situation where a decent game fails becuase of half baked live service features that no one wanted in the game.

[stepee]

 

I think if you are giving review code to reviewers, you shouldn’t purposefully neglect certain sites. That sends a bad signal to me that things didn’t turn out well more than the review even if it was bad would. I don’t pay attention to any single review, but if the publisher itself is showing it’s not confident in its game, that is a bigger red flag to me.

 

Beyond doing that on purpose and not reasonably trying to provide a review copy to the usual OC/meta outlets, I’m fine with whatever they choose. I don’t think any reviewer is owed anything and don’t mind them at all having to buy their own copies. If they don’t want to give anyone a copy, fine by me.

 

It does makes me wonder a little bit any time a game doesn’t have reviews out before release, but I’ve seen enough examples to know it’s not always a bad sign.

 

Something like Suicide Squad where I feel like at least some more clickbaity outlets are just ready to take any bug they can find and make the entire review about it, I can almost understand more wanting to make sure it’s reviewed on whatever the absolute latest patch they have ready.

[chakoo]

I have nothing wrong with reviews and their need to get games early so they can align close to launch but to be frank, reviews/previews and the likes are nothing more than extension of a game's marketing. If a company does not want to send out review copies they are more then welcome to do so but will have to deal with the rumours and speculation that will bring with it (crap game or just a game coming in hot).

[ShreddieMercury]

The problem is two-fold:

 

1. Nobody knows how to review video games

2. Gamers don't understand criticism

 

If I was a publisher, I would absolutely strategically exclude certain media outlets based on the lack of skilled writing and analysis present in the majority what they put out.  And since gamers don't know how to read and only look at the metacritic average, why would you cast a broader net knowing how inconsistent the reception will be?

 

A product only needs to be as smart or interesting as its audience, and... woof, video games.

[Dodger]

Some outlets clearly have a bias or write bad clickbait reviews and it’s definitely okay to not send them early reviews.

 

what I usually do is when @Commissar SFLUFANupdates a game thread with the MC and review snippets i just go through those. Usually you see a pattern of general thoughts so i check that out to see if some that interests me or turns me off. Especially for games that get mixed reviews. Go through the snippets and see what the good reviews highlight and the bad reviews point out and see what lines up with what I like and don’t like.

 

 

[Paperclyp]

1. Wrong? I dunno. Probably. It's impossible to include everyone. The studios who purposely exclude certain publications from receiving code due to perceived past injustices are quite silly and petty. How much does this matter in the scheme of things / how much do I care? Very, very little. 

 

2. I don't think publications are necessarily entitled to anything. The industry just doesn't work that way anymore. People aren't generally looking to big name sites reviews beyond confirming their pre-held notion about a game / or disagreeing with it and subsequently finding reasons why the person is "wrong." 

 

Maybe something like the justice league game getting out and controlling the narrative a little bit early on is helpful, but especially when it's a live service game it's just like... OK this ain't gonna save your ass if it's bad. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

This industry is such a leaky boat, that we already have a pretty good idea if a game is gonna be trash or not long before review copies go out. 

[best3444]

1 hour ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

This industry is such a leaky boat, that we already have a pretty good idea if a game is gonna be trash or not long before review copies go out. 

 

Like Suicide Squad.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

I do think it’s good when review outlets get review copies. While I don’t think any organization or individual is entitled to receive a review copy of a game I do think it’s wrong to exclude anyone because an outlet would not be favorable enough, based on past reviews and perceived biases. 
 

The problem is many studios but more importantly publishers see reviews entirely as marketing. 
 

one ongoing trend I hate is when reviewers talk to the developer about issues, the developer promises they will be fixed in a day-one patch and then it takes weeks-months to get fixed, if ever. Does the review point out the issues? Nope. This kind of thing is getting better, but still happens. Payday 3 comes to mind. 
 

It’s why we all got worried when Doom 2016 didn’t send out review codes. Doom 2016 is still an anomaly, but sited when a publisher doesn’t send out review codes. Or limits review codes and sets and embargo like right at the release date. 
 

For a multitude of reasons we will never get an industry that treats reviews with reverence and honor, for the sole intent of conveying value and quality consumers. We’ll always have those using reviews for other agendas. Whether it’s feeding a console war, click baiting for views, reviewing bombing for whatever other reason, sucking up for access, marketing, etc. There’s no way to fix it, because once money is involved nothing stays sacred.