Review Embargoes - Lets Talk

[Naar]

Currently to pissed to be able to have an online discussion, so im picking this one up in the morning.

 

But i do want to talk about it, since i think it stinks and is plain wrong.

 

Maybe also talk about the fact that we "have to live with it" and how thats utter bullcrap.

 

: peace:

[Nicktendo]

Absolutely nay. The sole purpose of the embargo is to drive pre-orders. Publishers know within two weeks the turd of game they just crapped out will be in the bargain bins, so the only way to make money off it is to hype it up to the moon and cash in before the game is even released. See also: Pre-order bonus material / extras / DLC.

[bob]

I'm pretty anti them, although for certain games, it is only fair to wait until servers, patches etc are up and running before reviewing it.

[S.C.G]

I'd like to talk about review embargo's, but I'll have to wait until a later date.

[Hero-of-Time]

I'd like to talk about review embargo's, but I'll have to wait until a later date.

 

I'm actually disappointed @bob didn't write this.

 

Review embargo's don't really bother me, mainly because I don't put much stock in reviews anymore.

 

Over the years i've seen various outlets score games in a certain way for clicks, come under pressure from publishers to give their game a good review or just generally show bias towards a certain game or franchise. Most reviewers don't actually finish a game before giving out a score or their final thoughts. It's like being a film critic and only watching half a movie and then saying what you think about it or being a football pundit but only watching half the match.

 

As a sidenote, reviews seem to bring the worst out in gamers. We've seen it a few times on these very boards when a game doesn't score as highly as a person thinks it should and then arguments break out. It should never matter what someone else thinks of the game, only what you think of it.

[bob]

I'm actually disappointed @bob didn't write this.

 

I like to leave some jokes for other people.

[Jimbob]

I don't take reviews seriously these days, heck i've not even read the review for Horizon at all. But the game is fantastic. The way i see it, i use them as advice on how the game could be. But, and there is a but. Some reviews can be seriously biased towards driving sales, and embargo's on game reviews do just that. It's happening more and more now, and i'm not a fan of it myself.

 

It's like Destiny, that couldn't be reviewed until launch when the servers were switched on.

[Naar]

Well, people should have known No Man's Sky was utter crap so they didnt waste their monies on it.

 

Pretty extreme example, but still.

 

Im fan of Nicktendo's post. If publishers/production companies make crappy games, they should be punished for it, not rewarded. This roots out the crappy game companies so they will eventually go bankrupt [as they should].

 

Consumers are getting

fucked in the ass, without lube OR protection

 

[Space]

An embargo is fine if the publisher has allowed reviewers reasonable time to complete the game. But in some cases press are left with the decision to rush a review to have something live by the embargo (e.g. being given the game the day or two before the embargo). Without an embargo the quality of the press coverage would tend to be less in-depth, early in progress or rushed reviews would appear everywhere with the pressure to get a review live before competitors. It can level the playing field and let the reviewer do a better job.

 

It is reasonable for a publisher to want to time the coverage just before release date.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Space

[Ashley]

There's a hell of a lot to this and aspects are good and bad.

 

It's good that things are aligned so sites release at the same time and as such it levels the playing field (presuming everyone gets it at the same time, or with sufficient time, but that doesn't always happen).

 

It's not good when the embargo dates are different for different regions, or when an embargo exists for a game that has already been out in a different region (we've had one before now where a game was already out elsewhere but we weren't allowed to discuss certain aspects).

 

However a lot of this seems to be talking about the practice of reviews rather than embargoes themselves...

 

(and I'm really having to fight the urge to fix the topic title)

[Mr-Paul]

(and I'm really having to fight the urge to fix the topic title)

 

Please do. It's been annoying me all day!

 

Yes, review embargoes can hide terrible products, but they're a necessary part of consumer technology journalism. Without them, media outlets wouldn't ever receive products ahead of launch, and reviews ahead of a product launch are a good thing for the consumer.

 

Yes, they have a PR benefit for the company providing the product as they can control the flow of information, but the benefit of journalists getting their hands on products early and the ability to do their job to review a product and provide information to their audience ahead of them being able to buy it themselves outweighs any misuse/dodgy dealings by the provider of the product.

[Dcubed]

It's a bit of a double edged sword really. On one hand, review embargos level the playing field to a certain extent, (ideally, but certainly not always!) giving people time to write up a review that is reflective of the entire game experience and disencouraging people from rushing out a poorly written piece that grabs clicks simply by virtue of being first.

 

On the other hand, they are often abused to ensure that a certain portion of the game audience buy blind.

 

Sometimes they're also just silly, like with the European Yo-kai Watch one. What was the point of having an embargo on a game that was released in the US 6 months ago again?

 

I do kind of look at them as a bit of a necessary evil. When used responsibly, they do make for better reviews that are better representitive of the product that your audience is interested in buying. Without them, it would end up being a mess of people powering through games and writing up scrappy garbage based on a small portion of the game (not that this doesn't happen... I'm looking at YOU Arthur Gies and your absolutely disgraceful review of Starfox Zero...)

 

A poorly written review that fails to convey the feeling of actually playing the game is worse than having no review at all in my eyes.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Dcubed

[Nicktendo]

I'm not sure I can agree with some of the points made here about embargoes helping to avoid click-bait articles and reviews. I find this excuse to be anti-consumer. While I admit there was a certain amount of stock placed by gaming media (magazines I suppose) in the 90s to have that "world exclusive" review on the front cover, it was fairly simple for the gamer to distinguish which publications were more respected / independent / honest in their reviewing. At least it seemed that way to me.

 

Fast-forward to today and we have a situation not too dissimilar. Only now, content is entirely free and there's much more of it. Every gamer who is serious about this hobby knows which publications are to be trusted and respected. I'm sure the vast majority of gamers can tell from a review if the person reviewing it has actually played the game. These relationships between the publishers and the reviewers are built on trust, as are the relationships between the reviewers and the gamers. If a reviewer were to rush reviews and opt for click-bait driven articles based on being first, over time their relationship with gamers would diminish as their reviews would be non-representative of the content offered in the game. The publishers themselves could also take a more active roll in sending out review copies by identifying which reviewers haven't actually played their games and blacklisting them (I realise this is open to abuse, but hey I'm in a positive mood today). Anyone who does find themselves blacklisted can simply wait, just like the rest of us, and review the game when it's on the shelves. If their review is engaging, honest, and maintains journalistic integrity, the clicks will come (I'm thinking, for example, Angry Joe and Jim Stirling here, both blacklisted by Nintendo, but I'm still interested in hearing what they have to say about their games, even if it's days or weeks after release)

 

Of course there are a whole heap of other problems in the gaming industry when it comes to reviews and release dates including bought reviews, day one patches, exclusive DLC etc etc. But at the end of the day the consumer doesn't need to be treated like an idiot. I have my set of sites, podcasts, personalities, bloggers and magazines who I trust, as I'm sure 99% of us here do, that would be the same without a review embargo. If IGN or NWR rushed a review just to be first, I'd be able to tell (maybe not always straight away, but eventually) and I'd place less value on their opinion and less clicks on their homepage.

[bob]

I'm not sure I can agree with some of the points made here about embargoes helping to avoid click-bait articles and reviews. I find this excuse to be anti-consumer. While I admit there was a certain amount of stock placed by gaming media (magazines I suppose) in the 90s to have that "world exclusive" review on the front cover, it was fairly simple for the gamer to distinguish which publications were more respected / independent / honest in their reviewing. At least it seemed that way to me.

 

Fast-forward to today and we have a situation not too dissimilar. Only now, content is entirely free and there's much more of it. Every gamer who is serious about this hobby knows which publications are to be trusted and respected. I'm sure the vast majority of gamers can tell from a review if the person reviewing it has actually played the game. These relationships between the publishers and the reviewers are built on trust, as are the relationships between the reviewers and the gamers. If a reviewer were to rush reviews and opt for click-bait driven articles based on being first, over time their relationship with gamers would diminish as their reviews would be non-representative of the content offered in the game. The publishers themselves could also take a more active roll in sending out review copies by identifying which reviewers haven't actually played their games and blacklisting them (I realise this is open to abuse, but hey I'm in a positive mood today). Anyone who does find themselves blacklisted can simply wait, just like the rest of us, and review the game when it's on the shelves. If their review is engaging, honest, and maintains journalistic integrity, the clicks will come (I'm thinking, for example, Angry Joe and Jim Stirling here, both blacklisted by Nintendo, but I'm still interested in hearing what they have to say about their games, even if it's days or weeks after release)

 

Of course there are a whole heap of other problems in the gaming industry when it comes to reviews and release dates including bought reviews, day one patches, exclusive DLC etc etc. But at the end of the day the consumer doesn't need to be treated like an idiot. I have my set of sites, podcasts, personalities, bloggers and magazines who I trust, as I'm sure 99% of us here do, that would be the same without a review embargo. If IGN or NWR rushed a review just to be first, I'd be able to tell (maybe not always straight away, but eventually) and I'd place less value on their opinion and less clicks on their homepage.

Yes but buying a magazine is one thing, clicking on a link because you want to see how they justified a certain score is another. It only takes a second to click and scroll though a review.

 

You might not agree or rate that site afterwards as a review website, but it doesn't matter, they've still got your clicks, and they'll probably get them next time as well.

 

Clickbait works, and one website managing to get their review up a few hours early will generate a lot of clicks, regardless of whether they've played the whole game or not.

 

I don't even know what I'm arguing against actually. What was the question?