2 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 .

[John Epler]

I'm going to strongly, -strongly- recommend that some people cut it out with the personal attacks and ad hominems.

If some of you feel unable or unwilling to debate points rather than personalities, then you will be removed from the forums.

[Stanley Woo]

Not really Dragon Age II related. Please take your conspiracy theories to our Off-Topic forum. Thank you.

End of line.