228 réponses à ce sujet

[v_ware]

I recently read this article in my regular gaming magazine and I just wanted to share this.

If you look at the working methods of some publishers, you can only conclude that they see the press as a danger that should be banned instead of being used as an information channel towards the consumers. Until recently all publishers (apart from some exceptions) did their best to make sure that the press could release
a review of their new game before or  at least at the same time of it’s release, so the consumers had a unbiased opinion of the game.

Lately however, things have changed.

Most publishers will do anything to stop a review from appearing before the release. At first they did this quite subtly by saying the reviewcode wasn’t available yet. But these last months they impose a review-embargo, on nearly all games, that prevents reviews being published before the game is released.

It gets really aggravating when it seems some of these review-embargos are all of a sudden flexible, as long as you make sure you publish a positive review.

Another proven strategy is to force the press to come and play the game for a couple of hours in the publishers offices, to which off course only a limited number of journalists are invited, because of a limited budget. Apart from the fact that it’s impossible to write a good review  when you’ve only played a game one day while the publisher/developer is breathing down your neck, we ask ourselves who will be invited: the annoying journalist who regularly critiques the flaws of a game, or the journalist who finds everything fantastic?

For the online press this ‘no review until release date, unless with special treatment’ is no pleasant way to work, but they can put an unbiased review online a day after the game is published. For the printed press, who usually works with a lead time of minimum 2 weeks, this way of working prevents the magazine from operating correctly.  This month’s edition you’re now reading appeared on 1 march, but because of a review-embargo on Dragon Age 2, a game that releases on 11 march, we can only publish our review in the april edition, which is three weeks after the release of the game.

The strategy behind this is clear. Preorder and week-1-sales revenue makes up a large chunk of the total sales of a game. By preventing negative or lukewarm reviews from being published before or at the time of release a big part of the sales is secured.

It seems the press stands for a choiche: Early fake positive reviews or late honest ones. Guess which one we prefer.

Translated from: Gameplay: Het ultieme spelmagazine. 
NR 179 march 2011


There you go... I don't really know what to say or how to comment on this. I guess what we feared and suspected is true.
And for those interested: these were all the other games they mentioned that used this strategy:
Bulletstorm, Dragon Age 2…: EA
Black Ops, The Force Unleashed 2, Blood stone…: Activision

PS: Their review of Dragon Age 2: Belgian Gameplay Review: Weakest Bioware game in a very long time. (70pct)
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6867686

Modifié par v_ware, 20 avril 2011 - 10:04 .

[AkiKishi]

Pretty much confirms what most people already know/suspect.

[randName]

Yes this seems to be the case - and as said with most publishers now (and not just EA and DA2).

It's pretty obvious when you look at meta critic, and all the early reviews on almost any game are stellar, and then the more critical reviews start to trickle in 1-2 weeks after the release.

But any inside piece like these are helping (read some other shorter comment by a reviewer about it as well).

[Aermord]

Thank you for posting this. It's true, and a lot of us were tricked by fake positive early reviews in regard of Dragon Age 2.

In my case it wont happen again. Trust is gone.

[randName]

Aermord wrote...

Thank you for posting this. It's true, and a lot of us were tricked by fake positive early reviews in regard of Dragon Age 2.

In my case it wont happen again. Trust is gone.

Since it's mainpulation, but one hard to pinpoint from just looking at one game - any publisher that does this kind of forces the others to at least consider it as well, not to lose the reviewer edge.

I guess it just makes it harder to buy games around release from now on.

[LyndseyCousland]

*nods in agreement*

[Persephone]

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.

[v_ware]

Aermord wrote...

Thank you for posting this. It's true, and a lot of us were tricked by fake positive early reviews in regard of Dragon Age 2.

In my case it wont happen again. Trust is gone.

If possible I'm even more dissapointed in EA/Bioware...

[v_ware]

Persephone wrote...

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.

No hard evidence? It was written by the editor in chief of a major gaming magazine.

But they don't have any insight in the workings of the press and dealing with publishers now do they.

Modifié par v_ware, 20 avril 2011 - 10:12 .

[abaris]

Persephone wrote...

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.

Yeah? What dramatic effect did you expect?

The guy speaks the truth. Money talks, pressure talks. That's the media business as I know it out of personal experience.

[Persephone]

v_ware wrote...

Persephone wrote...

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.

No hard evidence? It was written by the editor in chief of a major gaming magazine.

But they don't have any insight in the workings of the press and dealing with publishers now do they.

No court of law convinces based on hearsay and other such nonsense. No matter who writes articles like this. Would you say it's hard evidence that Anne Boleyn had 6 fingers on one hand, was Henry VIII's DAUGHTER, had three breasts and the face of a monster because a HISTORIAN (They should know, right?) said so? A historian hostile to her who had an AGENDA to blacken her name? But hey, many people DID believe that fool. The six fingers legend has been particularly popular. And it's because of infighting, self-promotion etc. that reviews cannot be trusted either way and why I refuse to do so. Not because of conspiracies that may suit my agenda or not, but because critics are just people and vary in quality. Like historians. Easy as that.

[v_ware]

Persephone wrote...

v_ware wrote...

Persephone wrote...

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.

No hard evidence? It was written by the editor in chief of a major gaming magazine.

But they don't have any insight in the workings of the press and dealing with publishers now do they.

No court of law convinces based on hearsay and other such nonsense. No matter who writes articles like this. Would you say it's hard evidence that Anne Boleyn had 6 fingers on one hand, was Henry VIII's DAUGHTER, had three breasts and the face of a monster because a HISTORIAN (They should know, right?) said so? A historian hostile to her who had an AGENDA to blacken her name? But hey, many people DID believe that fool. The six fingers legend has been particularly popular. And it's because of infighting, self-promotion etc. that reviews cannot be trusted either way and why I refuse to do so. Not because of conspiracies that may suit my agenda or not, but because critics are just people and vary in quality. Like historians. Easy as that.

I'll stop this argument right here, good for you if that's your opinion.

Good for the rest of us to know to no longer trust early published reviews.

Modifié par v_ware, 20 avril 2011 - 10:22 .

[Yrkoon]

[quote]Persephone wrote...

[quote]v_ware wrote...

[quote]Persephone wrote...

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.
[/quote]
No hard evidence? It was written by the editor in chief of a major gaming magazine.

But they don't have any insight in the workings of the press and dealing with publishers now do they.

[/quote]
No court of law convinces based on hearsay and other such nonsense. [/quote]
[/quote]
Courts convict all the time on witness testimony.  Which is exactly what this article is.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 avril 2011 - 10:22 .

[Persephone]

v_ware wrote...

Persephone wrote...

v_ware wrote...

Persephone wrote...

The title was so nice and melodramatic.

The article itself was not nearly as interesting. Lotsa theories, no hard evidence. Moving on.

And of course this thread would not exist if the so called "consensus" was to support the game. Oh no, then we'd be all defensive and angry about it.

No hard evidence? It was written by the editor in chief of a major gaming magazine.

But they don't have any insight in the workings of the press and dealing with publishers now do they.

No court of law convinces based on hearsay and other such nonsense. No matter who writes articles like this. Would you say it's hard evidence that Anne Boleyn had 6 fingers on one hand, was Henry VIII's DAUGHTER, had three breasts and the face of a monster because a HISTORIAN (They should know, right?) said so? A historian hostile to her who had an AGENDA to blacken her name? But hey, many people DID believe that fool. The six fingers legend has been particularly popular. And it's because of infighting, self-promotion etc. that reviews cannot be trusted either way and why I refuse to do so. Not because of conspiracies that may suit my agenda or not, but because critics are just people and vary in quality. Like historians. Easy as that.

I'll stop this argument right here, good for you if that's your opinion.

Good for the rest of us to know to no longer trust early published reviews.

I've never trusted any reviews, I only trust my own opinions. Trends, reviews, word of mouth propaganda etc. all have agendas and I refuse to feed them.

[Gleym]

Pretty sure we're not comparing fictional slander with something that has cropped up multiple times in the industry where companies will attempt to buy and bully reviewers into giving them a gold star. But hey, you know, it's not like they'd know better than someone who is convinced that their favourite company can do no foul, right? Especially since they even acknowledge the fact that those who speak up about real criticisms never get called back in to try out a game in favor of people who think everything is fantastic. Yeah, it's silly to assume that they're actually being honest and open about the state of the industry, even if it costs them future review options, clearly they're just being big meanies and slandering poor Bioware.

[v_ware]

Gleym wrote...

Pretty sure we're not comparing fictional slander with something that has cropped up multiple times in the industry where companies will attempt to buy and bully reviewers into giving them a gold star. But hey, you know, it's not like they'd know better than someone who is convinced that their favourite company can do no foul, right? Especially since they even acknowledge the fact that those who speak up about real criticisms never get called back in to try out a game in favor of people who think everything is fantastic. Yeah, it's silly to assume that they're actually being honest and open about the state of the industry, even if it costs them future review options, clearly they're just being big meanies and slandering poor Bioware.

You forgot poor EA and Activision. Sad little things.

[Persephone]

Yrkoon wrote...
Courts convict all the time on witness testimony.  Which is exactly what this article is.

Read the rest of my post.

I'm the daughter of a lawyer. No, they do not rely on hearsay evidence without evidence to back it up. (Show me proof positive of Bioware FORBIDDING negative reviews being released.) Or would you say what that historian wrote to suit his hostile agenda is witness testimony too and portraying Anne Boleyn with normal hands, a normal face and two breasts is misleading and a betrayal of "true" history? It can be played either way. That's the bloody point.

Modifié par Persephone, 20 avril 2011 - 10:26 .

[Teredan]

That's nothing new everyone should know that it's not smart to believe the media a 100%.
Yes, shock even what you see on the news may be presented/tampered with in a wrong way.
Always keep your wits with you and the information that you're presented with, common sense or it should at least be...

[Persephone]

Gleym wrote...

But hey, you know, it's not like they'd know better than someone who is convinced that their favourite company can do no foul, right?

Sure they can. And once I see written proof rather than assumptions, I'll believe it. Proof on both sides, not just the accusation hurled out like a gauntlet.

[Sabriana]

Thanks for posting this. It does, however merely give insider confirmation of something that was long suspected. There are certain publishing companies that do have a spotty public record of underhanded promotion and advertisement.

That, as well as the scandal that erupted when a reviewer was caught red-handed excepting goodies in return for a good review (the name eludes me atm, but it was quite a large publication he worked for) simply continues to erode consumer confidence in ANY professional review.

It is quite a shame, because I'm sure there are honest reviewers around. Personally, I have never put much stock in public reviews, and I never, ever decided about purchases on those alone. I've passed this healthy skepticism on to my kids. That's about all the consumer can do about this, until the next public scandal erupts.

[Gleym]

So the part where they outright mention how the only times they get to review games pre-release is in the publishers' offices, being stared down and expected to say good things right there on the spot must've been lost on you. Unless, of course, you're saying that they're making it all up. Which is awful convenient for your argument in a dismissive-of-reality sort of way.

[Yrkoon]

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Courts convict all the time on witness testimony.  Which is exactly what this article is.

Read the rest of my post.

I'm the daughter of a lawyer. No, they do not rely on hearsay evidence without evidence to back it up. (Show me proof positive of Bioware FORBIDDING negative reviews being released.) Or would you say what that historian wrote to suit his hostile agenda is witness testimony too and portraying Anne Boleyn with normal hands, a normal face and two breasts is misleading and a betrayal of "true" history? It can be played either way. That's the bloody point.

OK, this is beyond silly.  First off, no one here  (except maybe you) is   arguing that a  crime has been committed, so the court analogy  you're bringing up  already fails from the get-go.

Second, unless you're  the daughter of a journalist of a gaming magazine or otherwise have counter evidence that  suggests Payola isn't practiced in the media with just about ANY advertized/reviewed product, your argument here is  completely empty.  What the article describes happens.    Period.   None of the players involved  even DENY that it does.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 avril 2011 - 10:34 .

[Stegoceras]

I wonder why that text was familiar, till I read the source. I have been reading the magazine for years and can only say they have always been honest.

On the other hand I do want to point out that this tactic is not only confined to EA/Bioware but alas they made themselves a pretty big target with Dragon Age 2.

Also Persephone, perhaps you should compare some reviews that came out before release and a few weeks after release and compare them to see if there is a certain core of truth to this article before saying it ain't true because you can't confirm it.