DIGITISER
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ

GAMES JOURNALISM: DEATH OF A DREAM - by Mr Biffo

28/10/2016

48 Comments

 
Picture
I love games journalists - part of me (my right lung) still is one. I mean, you have to admire the doggedness of anyone who sticks with a career where the pay is low, and the self-respect even lower. In terms of things not to drop into conversation, telling people you're a games journalist is several rungs lower than admitting your dream is to work in a special lavatory for pigs.

At the same time, some games journalists - like all people - have a tendency to be entitled, insufferable, penis-heads. And I speak from experience here.

When we first started Digitiser, we were too shy to ring up PR companies and ask for games. We somehow ended up getting our review copies - in the early days - from an importer called VG Games. Through a mix of necessity - VG Games didn't stock PC or (shudder) Amiga games, so we had to find those for ourselves - and PR people starting to approach us, we began gradually to develop a relationship with the main PR types.

Then one day, VG Games called and complained that they weren't getting enough out of their relationship with us - despite having a plug at the bottom of the reviews which went out to 1.5 million weekly readers - and we told them to stick their review copies up their arseholes.

As Digi grew in popularity, so did our confidence. We started calling the games companies to get on their review copy mailing lists - I still vividly remember the first time I did so: asking Infogrames for some game or other, and being amazed when they coughed up without any hassle whatsoever. 

And then this happened: we started to think we deserved review copies. More than that: we felt PR people had some sort of obligation to provide them to us, and would get annoyed when they didn't. What dreadful idiots we were back then.
Picture
KERFUFFLE
There was a bit of a kerfuffle earlier this week, when Bethesda announced... well, when it announced this: 

"At Bethesda, we value media reviews.

"We read them. We watch them. We try to learn from them when they offer critique. And we understand their value to our players.

"Earlier this year we released DOOM. We sent review copies to arrive the day before launch, which led to speculation about the quality of the game. Since then DOOM has emerged as a critical and commercial hit, and is now one of the highest-rated shooters of the past few years.

"With the upcoming launches of Skyrim Special Edition and Dishonored 2, we will continue our policy of sending media review copies one day before release. While we will continue to work with media, streamers, and YouTubers to support their coverage – both before and after release – we want everyone, including those in the media, to experience our games at the same time.

"We also understand that some of you want to read reviews before you make your decision, and if that’s the case we encourage you to wait for your favorite reviewers to share their thoughts."


Suffice to say, reaction to the news was mixed. A number of games media outlets dressed up their outrage as being in response to Bethesda's "anti-consumer" policy - that by getting review code early, they're able to write their reviews in time for release day, and thereby enable people to make informed purchases.

Others grumbled that Bethesda is just one of several games companies that cherry-picks which outlets to favour when it comes to giving access. So that, y'know, they can weight coverage in their favour.

And...? Bethesda makes games, wants those games to do well, and you can't blame them for doing what it takes to ensure that happens. Why do you, El Games Journo, really care, though?

THE BADDEST THING
It's a well-told anecdote, but one of the baddest things we ever did on Digi - in the eyes of our (ahem) "superiors" - was slagging off the head of PR for Sony.

The piece had been cleared to go to air by the sub-editors. All we'd done was express our frustration at not getting a copy of Wipeout on the Playstation to review. Yes, we'd mentioned the PR guy by name, but we were about the last corner of the gaming press not to have reviewed Wipeout, and the PR guy had spent a month ignoring our attempts to contact him.

We got into trouble when Sony's furious PR chief G.O'Connell rang our bosses to complain. The very definition of "Bad PR, O'Connell", as we'd written on Digi. On the plus side, we got our review copy. And copies of all Sony games from that day onwards. O'Connell never spoke to us again, however. Which was no loss, as he had done his level best to avoid speaking to us in the first place.

Thing is though... we were being dicks. We thought he should be treating us with more respect because, y'know, we had 1.5 million weekly viewers. We thought we'd earned the right to special treatment. Plus, we were concerned that we were looking like tits in the eyes of our readers. So... it was a mix of our own pride and ego that was being rattled, rather than any selfless moral stance.

We thought we deserved to get review copies because the likes of Jaz Rignall and Dave Perry were getting review copies. We had a chip on our shoulders. We wanted those review copies, like spoilt kids.

We did not deserve them. And nobody does. A few gaming press outlets have admitted - seemingly through gritted teeth - that of course Bethesda and other games companies have no prerogative to send them review code. But they really don't.

There's nothing to stop any of us setting up our own games magazine or website. What... just because you've done that you're meant to automatically start getting free games? Where is it written that this must happen?

I can count the number of free games I've had since starting Digi2000 on three fingers - most recently Battlezone VR (review imminent). Every other game, even the PlayStation VR, I've bought from my Patreon fund, because - frankly - I can't be arsed with that whole awkward dance with PR people. I know full well that regardless of how many readers I get on here, I'm not obliged to get anything (though it's very nice on the handful of occasions that I have).
Picture
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
So this is what I say: if you write or run a games magazine, and a games publisher doesn't send you a review copy of their latest game, then tough shit.

I get how it would be annoying, when previously you've been blessed with review code weeks earlier than regular plebs, but to then complain about it - under the umbrella of it being because you just want to provide the best coverage for your readers - is at best churlish, and borderline outright dishonest.

Y'know... again, I speak from experience here. It's great getting stuff earlier than anyone else. It's great getting free stuff. Even better when you get that free stuff, and you're being paid to write about it. It's great getting a package full of t-shirts and promotional bits and bobs, or getting to go to game expos, or trips abroad, or meeting with developers.

Yeah, it's a job - but it's also a bloody great job. It's a privilege, and you can't tell me that all these game journos who complained about the stance from Bethesda were doing so entirely selflessly, and were thinking only of their readers.

I mean... c'mon. Really? You expect us to believe that? You're human. It's flattering to think that you've got a special relationship with PR people. Your egos are bruised because a major games publisher no longer thinks you're as important as you once thought you were.

There's no shame in admitting that. Try being me: I used to have 1.5 million readers. Now I've got about six, and they're all mental. 

AGAIN WHAT?
Again, another anecdote sums up this mentality: I got sent on a promotional trip around various Sony studios - at a time when Digi was on better terms with Sony (O'Connell had moved on).

I was given tours of their various offices - seeing games that were occasionally over a year away from release. We were fed, watered, and at the end of it got to dress up as peasants for a medieval banquet. 

And my abiding memory of this trip was sitting on the coach next to some ruddy print journo, who complained about how the whole thing was beneath him and boring. People would've killed to have had a trip like we got - and we got it as part of our jobs. And all he could do was complain, like some entitled brat.

It was an attitude I saw again and again: hanging out with a bunch of journos of my acquaintance at the star-studded and glittering Dreamcast launch, who couldn't have tried harder to act bored, before they all disappeared into the toilets to take cocaine. Or the lot that whined the whole day a ton of us got to play giant-size recreations of various Hasbro board games - Monopoly, Cluedo, table football - and just wanted to skip all that, and get drunk.

Not all of them were like that - and even now, there are plenty who get it - but every time I was confronted with that attitude, I was stunned. I may not have been the perfect journo, but at least I never lost sight of how lucky I was.

What the hell do these people want or expect from their jobs? Well, perhaps they expected free games weeks before everyone else gets to play them, but that glory bus is apparently grinding to a halt. You're back in the gutter with the rest of us now. 

FROM THE ARCHIVE:
REVIEW: BATTLEFIELD 1 - PS4, XBOX ONE, PC (PS4 VERSION TESTED)
​
REVIEW: GEARS OF WAR 4 - XBOX ONE
FIRST IMPRESSION: NINTENDO SWITCH


48 Comments
Darren link
28/10/2016 12:47:10 pm

Thankfully, reviewers in the meedja are largely irrelevant now thanks to the YouTubes and social medias. Now you can see, smell and taste the games before handing over your pocket money.

Can you believe it, but when I first started buying computer magazines back in the day of the ZX Spectrum and what-not, they'd print reviews without any screen shots? And we took it...boy, did we take it...

Vive la revolution!

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/10/2016 01:15:26 pm

This, sadly, is the truth.

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
28/10/2016 12:49:45 pm

What did the G in VG Games stand for? Please tel me it was "Games".

Reply
MrPSB
28/10/2016 12:56:12 pm

It stood for "Gfannies"

Reply
RichardM
28/10/2016 04:22:56 pm

Very Good (i.e. not Amiga) Games.

Jackie Bimble
28/10/2016 12:59:37 pm

Or do what I did, pirate all the games you need to review. The only downside is you can't trade them in at CEX.

Reply
Wicked Eric
28/10/2016 01:04:19 pm

Oh man, oh Biffo! What a terribly incorrect opinion you have here. You should have had it reviewed before publishing.

Bethesda and other pubs are only doing this so if (and when) they slip out a turd then us idiotic paupers will end up buying it before anyone has had the chance to warn us about the big ol' shit sandwich we're about to bite into.

They're entitled to do this of course. But you don't want people eating shit do you, Biffo? Especially not the poor kids. :(

Reply
MrPSB
28/10/2016 01:08:32 pm

Why not foil their evil plans by just not buying it until you know?

Reply
James of the North
28/10/2016 01:21:41 pm

What this policy essentially means is that the only way to get exclusive pre-order content is to hand over your money on blind faith, with no chance to cancel your order after the reviews start appearing.

Wicked Eric
28/10/2016 01:23:19 pm

Obviously I'm too rational and wildly intelligent to fall for such a scam. I'm only thinking of the other poor fannies out there.

Mr Biffo
28/10/2016 01:14:47 pm

Obviously I get why they're doing it. At the same time, there is NOTHING saying they can't do that. That's my point. I'm not debating the morality of Bethesda's stance - just doubting the sincerity of ALL the games outlets in opposing it. Not all, obviously. But some seemed to me wounded for other reasons. Bethesda is a big company, and they can do what the hell they like. I don't like that, but it's entirely their prerogative. I think people, on the whole, are smart enough to understand why they might adopt that stance, but I also think that there will still be enough Day One opinions from sites and YouTubers for it not to make much of a difference. If someone is going to get a game on day one, will a review have made much difference to that?

Reply
Wicked Eric
28/10/2016 01:49:32 pm

The publishers are unnecessarily making it more difficult for reviewers to do their job properly. There's no reason why journos should have to accept a shoddy policy lying down when that policy will disrupt their ability to do their job effectively.

Spiney O'Sullivan
28/10/2016 01:20:55 pm

Agreed, more often than not it's a bad sign when games aren't reviewed ahead of release by the publisher's mandate. Doom was a rarity.

However, it does bring me back to a point I've been banging on about a few times before: there is almost no reason to get things day 1 unless you run a YouTube channel. Half the time games need patched (sometimes massively in cases like AC Unity or Street Fighter V), pre-order "special" editions are getting stupidly expensive considering they're largely filled with tacky crap that will at best gather dust on a shelf and DLC that will typically lose its exclusivity shortly thereafter, and first-day communities on online games create lobbies mobbed with players who will give it up in a few weeks for the next big thing anyway.

Reply
Kara Van Park
28/10/2016 01:14:39 pm

Back in the day, we used to depend on monthly magazines to drip feed us information on upcoming games, tantalising screenshots etc. - their word was treated as gospel; but thanks to the internet, games companies can communicate directly with us; trade shows are effectively streamed to the customer's laptop and teaser trailers are dropped simultaneously into the sweaty laps of every potential punter.

You still have the pro websites reviewing games, but they usually are met with a volley of abuse if the scores given are seen as undeservedly high or low. Ultimately, over time, a release will get the reputation it merits, whether or not some journo is on good terms with the company.

I used to see Games mags as a trusted advisor, but now they're just a source of entertainment and more often or not I'll read them after I've played a game to see whether my experience jibes with theirs.

Reply
Marc
28/10/2016 01:30:04 pm

Why do people have to know what a game is like ahead of the very day of initial release? You don't have to pre-order or have it on the day it comes out, just wait, what, an extra week or whatever, until you've seen the review you want, if that's what you want. What's changed for customers here?

Reply
Shish link
28/10/2016 06:45:32 pm

Exclusive pre-order bonuses

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
29/10/2016 02:53:22 pm

Preorder bonuses are pretty great, and definitely worth the money.

Unfortunately I had to stop buying preorder special editions when my house became too filled with plastic statuettes of similar-looking scowling dark-haired caucasian guys to move around in without getting impaled on a plastic knife, sword, or Batman ear.

I don't actually know if they were worth getting on Day One though, as I haven't even played any video games in a few months since the Fallout 4 Pip Boy caved in the tunnel network that used to let me get to the TV. Turns out that limited edition 20-page art books aren't as good as makeshift mine supports as you'd think. In retrospect I should have used the steelbooks.

Anyway, I'm writing this from the garden in a tent comprised of the flags from the Assassins Creed 3 and 4 collectors editions, and sleeping on a mattress made of those weird mouse pads that come from anime game collectors editions. Winter's here, though, so I might have to start burning the little sheets of paper that have season pass and DLC codes written on them. But can I really bring myself to destroy so many golden gun skins, alternative costumes, and challenge maps that might take weeks, if not entire months to be released on PSN anyway?

Kelvin Green link
30/10/2016 12:06:56 am

Yeah, but the pre-order bonuses are usually rubbish and get bundled in the Game of the Year edition ten months later anyway.

Paul Morris
28/10/2016 01:38:50 pm

So if I may enquire were games companies ever reluctant to deal with Digi if you gave a bad review to a game that was genuinely shit?

Come to think of it did anyone mention Dino Dini?

Reply
Nick
28/10/2016 01:47:36 pm

Whilst you can't blame people for wanting to get drunk rather then play board games (of any size), who the hell didn't want to be at the Dreamcast launch. Name, shame and then subject to trial by fire it's the only language they understand.

Reply
Barrybarrybarrybarry
28/10/2016 01:49:07 pm

HEY IM NOT MENTAL

Reply
Kara Van Park
28/10/2016 01:57:11 pm

Save it for the judge.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/10/2016 07:04:54 pm

You're going down, boy.

Superbeast 2097
28/10/2016 02:15:59 pm

I've not read the famous "3%" study in detail so can't make any statement as to the quality/accuracy of the research. If that really is the limit of the gaming medias influence on purchases, it is hardly surprising that publishers view "reviews" (a specific function of the gaming media and not the games media's role in general) as more of a liability than an asset these days.

It strikes to me that they are funnelling the gaming press into acting as more of an outsourced PR department - "here are some short stage-managed clips of our new game, go out there and hype people up about it". That is where the press provide maximum value with the minimum of risks.

I think what was most telling of all about this story is that when the gaming press highlighted the issue to gamers, they were met with a muted and mixed response with large numbers actually supporting the publishers.

Fifteen years ago that would have been unthinkable and I am sure many in the gaming media were shocked by the lack of support they have received. Can't say i was shocked but for them it must have been a rude awakening.

Hopefully the death of review copies will ultimately lead to a situation where no one has to tow the line and choose their score wisely else they lose access to advanced code.Those acting as the "outsourced PR dept" will no doubt still have to "play along" as it were if they wish to receive those snippets of information that keep their sites alive.

For independent sites like Digi it will hopefully level the playing field. I have confidence that there is a large market out there of gamers who are prepared to wait a week or two before purchasing a game so that Independents can buy an off-the-shelf copy and play it enough to produce a quality critique.

Reply
Col. Asdasd
30/10/2016 11:03:32 am

I agree with a lot of this. As to your last paragraph, though, I'm afraid if we've learned anything from the last 10 years, from horse armour to f2p to season passes, it's that there's no shortage of rubes among the gamer demographic.

On a tangent, I find it very amusing that the games press has been stridently divesting itself of the label of a 'buyer's guide'... up until the second where it becomes convenient to don the mantle in their own self interest.

Where there have been *real* anti-consumer practices, such as publishers cynically rushing broken PC ports out the door, gamers flagging up the issue on Steam reviews have been derided by these sites as entitled and toxic. But the second someone comes to take away *their* toys, they're falling over themselves to fight for the users.

Reply
Meatballs-me-branch-me-do
28/10/2016 02:54:38 pm

Someone recently commented in PC Gamer's Battlefield 1 review what the point of their percentage scale was when everything scored between 75 and 100% - PCG being founded by AP staff who believed such a scale was pointless unless you used the whole thing, remember.

PCG's response: "High scores are the result of their being too many games to cover, thus us covering the ones that are good or notable. There's little point us reviewing a bad game that nobody has heard of. That hasn't stopped games like Mafia 3 getting scores outside of your arbitrary bracket."

Reply
Barrybarrybarrybarry
28/10/2016 03:40:17 pm

I have an actual question! It may be an idiotic question, but you know what they say: there aren't any stupid questions, only stupid people with stupid hats and stupid arms.

Can anyone explain why it's always called 'review code', instead of a 'review copy' (which I can only imagine it is, but I don't know)? It always strikes me as unnecessarily pretentious. Unless it is actually code that's sent to them in an envelope.

You know, like that version of Pong I spent about 6 hours putting into AMOS and then played for 30 seconds before realising it was boring.

Imagine inputting the entire code for Uncharted 4, or something. You can see why they're annoyed they only get games the day before they're out. Must take months putting all that into AMOS.

Reply
Blake
28/10/2016 04:32:58 pm

I think there's a special window in Steam, where you re-type the code from your envelope, which is then added to your steam library, so the next time you want to play the game, you don't have to type it again, you just need to compile it

Reply
Barrybarrybarrybarry
28/10/2016 04:38:49 pm

This is amazing. How to get Steam on Amiga 500, ploss?

But seriously, they generally refer to getting 'review code' rather than 'A review code', so surely it's not that simple?

I'm going to go with what I assume is Mr PSB's answer - it is merely that they are fannies.

RichardM
28/10/2016 04:35:11 pm

Yeah, the reviewers have to copy the code out of several phonebook size volumes and compile it, debugging any errors as they go. Means they can review important elements like indent style, variable names and commenting. Bethesda are doing this so they can write all their games in Pascal.

Reply
Barrybarrybarrybarry
28/10/2016 05:06:56 pm

The sneaky bastards.

Blake
28/10/2016 04:29:18 pm

I don't know, Rock Paper Shotgun has an article on this stuff and it's sort of disagreeing with your disagreement with their opinion and I sort of agree with their opinion. I mean, sure, it's their absolute right to do whatever the hell they want with their review copies.

On the other hand, I, as a customer, care about how companies treat the public. I want to know when nvidia uses turbo dickmove anti-competitive tactics , so I can buy an AMD GPU next time. I want to know when Bethesda says 'no review copies anymore', because I don't have the time to scour every game company's sites for official statements every day. The journalist is to inform me about this and enable me to make my opinion, that's his sole job and that's what I've seen so far.

You've had experience with spoiled brats pretending to be journalists and I think that might be quite the bias for you. But then again, I haven't had experience with spoiled brats pretending to be journalists and I have had experience with solid articles which gave me information and didn't want me to jump on the hate bandwagon in return, or didnjt even care for free games that much.

to the point of review copies, I'm a rather observant and patient person myself, I wouldn't give a damn if zero review copies of any game were given out before launch. I'll just hold on to my money for two more weeks, till I see reviews of it, I really have no problem with holding onto money, you know. But would I have this opinion if nobody made a fuss about it? No. No articles, no information, no opinion.

also I'm mental and I'm one of your six readers, you named me, I should be offended or something, right?

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/10/2016 07:04:19 pm

Yeah, there's a degree of bias, I'm sure, but as you say - it's informed bias, taken from experience. But also: my experience is way out of date, and something that I didn't mention is that I knew TONS of games journos who loved their jobs, and never complained. But... I'm sorry to say that I did detect a hint of whining in some of the pieces written in the wake of Bethesda's move, and I didn't buy the reasons given.More than that... there's a bigger undercurrent to what I'm trying to say in this piece about the very idea of entitlement. You see it from gamers themselves all too often. As I get old, I grow increasingly weary of the imaginary constructs of our world - things like games companies, and games magazines, and websites, aren't real. They're ephemeral and artificial, and the idea that any of us are owed anything by any of them is just bollocks, really.

And yeah: be offended. But I'm more mental than the lot of ya.

Reply
Blake
29/10/2016 09:13:14 am

Yeah, your main point didn't go unnoticed, I guess I was a bit taken aback by how common this issue must be, if you decided to write an article on it in this tone. I do my best to avoid social media of all sorts, I even found out about this gamergate thing here for the first time. So I guess yeah, it's probably me who's biased in the negative way. After all, the only games media I regularly consume are that one site I mentioned, and a local mag (MADE OF REAL PAPER!) we have here in this foreigner country I live in.

I don't count you as either games or media, you're basically a blogger, almost like a.. a youtuber! And a mental one too!
no, seriously, I'm one of those six that rarely ever read your game reviews, simply because I don't play the games you do, but the rest you write is better reading than any 'games media piece' anywhere.

Mr Biffo
29/10/2016 11:02:13 pm

Interestingly... you raise a point - something I've been thinking about recently. The reviews, generally, aren't that popular on here. Sometimes the big games get some interest, but overall.. they're less popular than the opinion pieces, and some of the stupid articles (though the weirder the article, the less popular). I try to make them interesting in and of themselves, so they're not just a review... but the very fact they're a review seems to put people off.

Something to mull over.

Spiney O'Sullivan
30/10/2016 12:36:22 am

Biffo, personally I do like reviews, but I would admit to just skimming the last few because I simply couldn't give fewer tosses about Battlefield or Gears of War.

Col. Asdasd
30/10/2016 11:00:06 am

Biffster, I wouldn't be surprised if the popularity of your opinion pieces stems from the fact that you usually offer a take refreshingly removed from the angry and dogmatic narratives which more or less every other site seems to be peddling these days, be it left-wing, right-wing, X-wing or tie fighter.

That's certainly why I appreciate them so much.

Panama Joe
28/10/2016 05:16:09 pm

Journalists getting early review copies was more of a necessity in the old days of printed media. Magazines have to be printed and distributed and sold in shops to punters in time before the game's release. Now people can publish reviews within a day or two. Early review copies is a legacy thing - the way its always been done - not necessarily the way it needs to be.

The other thing about early review code is that you often see journalists try and pass off some poor design or a bug as an issue they had with the review copy, and maybe it will be fixed in time for release. What if its not? How can a review be valid then? I'd be much happier knowing that development was as close to completion as possible before being reviewed.

Reply
Chomboss Wankuss
28/10/2016 07:16:42 pm

Those game journos were probably just acting up to look "cool" rather than being intentionally disrespectful- its time-honoured Brit behaviour to feign boredom/indifference at work-related events. Everyone wants to be Tim and Dawn not Gareth right (to use an outdated analogy).

Reply
Mrtankthreat
29/10/2016 03:21:38 am

"I'm sorry to say that I did detect a hint of whining in some of the pieces written in the wake of Bethesda's move, and I didn't buy the reasons given"

Can you give some examples of the reasons given and what you think are the real reasons? By my own reading of your piece, and if I'm wrong please correct me but the only "real" reasons I can see you suggesting are that reviewers would be upset because they either like getting free copies of games or else they like getting copies of games before anyone else and that that is in someway an ego boost.

For me, the first one isn't going to go away with Bethesda's decision. Again correct me if I'm wrong but aren't reviewers still going to get free copies, just later than usual? So the only thing they can really be upset with is the early access.

To me that's a fairly reasonable thing to be upset about because it's kind of the point of having reviews in the first place (although personally I suspect that most reviews are actually read after someone has bought the thing and serve mainly to reinforce a decision which is why people who enjoy a particular thing get so upset over so called bad reviews. It's actually the readers who are more in need of the ego boost but that's almost a separate, albeit interesting conversation to be had).

Mark Kermode gets upset when movies haven't been given a press screening but I don't think it's because it affects his ego. How is he supposed to inform his audience if a film is worth seeing if he hasn't seen it before us? Surely it should be the same for games.

"Obviously I get why they're doing it. At the same time, there is NOTHING saying they can't do that. That's my point."

Is anyone actually arguing that they can't do it though? For me the argument isn't that they can't do it it's that they shouldn't do it. Sure, Bethesda have the right to make the move they're making. But similarly everyone else also has the right to call them out on it.

Reply
Larry Bundy Jr link
29/10/2016 12:39:50 pm

Oh, don't get me wrong, some PRs are utter cunts Deep Silver has a particularly vindictive bully working for them that I'm going to enjoy covering soon.

But a lot of journalists complaining about this day before launch are only whining because they want to get their reviews out before everyone else to jump on those precious extra clicks.

EA have been doing games on launch for years, no one complained about that. But the pressure from YouTubers getting copies early, just from pre-ordering then is starting to affect them.

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
29/10/2016 02:26:42 pm

This video sounds exciting. I look forward to "5 PR people you didn't know were utter bastards".

(I really like your content, by the way!)

Reply
David W
29/10/2016 05:13:36 pm

Ah, Deep Silver, publisher of Ride to Hell: Retribution. That could have been what tipped their PR person over the edge.

Reply
Larry Bundy Jr link
29/10/2016 07:36:45 pm

Well she used to work for THQ previously,

Spiney O'Sullivan
29/10/2016 02:22:09 pm

The latest Jimquisition on this is a pretty fair analysis of the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkn5PhEqn4

I think I've been a bit cynical about him on here previously, but I've been watching a bit of him lately (particularly since the TmarTn/Syndicate CS:Go gambling scandal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_SbSdUkc8), and overall I've come to quite like him. While he might be brash and plays up to a character, I think his heart's in the right place. Overall he seems to care about the way the gamers get treated by publishers, of which this is a great example.

Much as the gaming press can be annoyingly cliquey at times, and have had a lot of trouble over the years balancing objectivity against the need for ad revenue from publishers who are now discarding them as they come to the end of their usefulness, it's hard to see this as anything but an effort to deprive potential buyers of useful information that might counter the work the publishers have put into their advertising drives. Bethesda generally makes good games (if a bit buggy...), but plenty of companies don't, and it's them who stand to benefit from this precedent.

Reply
GoblinSapper
29/10/2016 11:04:40 pm

While you're right and the journal industry is naff it's a huge steaming load of shit if you think Bethesda is doing this for any other reason than to manipulate a frankly stupid a d reactionary public who would easily be sold a bill of faulty goods if not for being told that shit was buggy and mediocre by reviewers. This is pure salt on their part towards being rightfully called out several times, and wrongfully called out multiple times by the likes of rag publications like Kotaku. Just as with the journos complaining there is no high minded pro-consumerism involved here, just cynical and corrupt pr control.

Reply
Mr Biffo
29/10/2016 11:31:26 pm

Completely agree. And I don't condone it for a second... but to just slag them off is the more obvious take on the situation. I thought it'd be interesting to maybe look at the response of the games media, and what might be behind their thinking - based upon how I would (and indeed... sort of did) react in their shoes. Or at least, the me of 20 years ago. I'm a firm believer that beneath every reaction to anything there's an emotional reaction from the individual. Those personal drives interest me more than the actions of some faceless, profit-hungry, corporate entity.

Reply
darbotron link
30/10/2016 11:46:12 am

It seems to me that a big part of this - which I'm not sure anyone mentioned elsewhere cos I can't be arsed to read the rest of the comments / whole internet - is that most big "AAA" games have day 1 patches these days.

This means that any review done before a game goes live is potentially reviewing a significantly different game than the one consumers will have - this is especially true on console platforms.

If I was the publisher I'd probably be doing the same thing.

I totally get the whole "it's a conspiracy to fool us into buying crap" argument, but that doesn't stand up to scrutiny since no-one stands to gain from publishers selling us crap, in the long term least of all them.

Also I'm with Mr Biffo that there's a significant proportion of whiny entitled fools amongst the media people who are moaning about it.

Ultimately who cares? just buy the game after it comes out when people have had a chance to play something approaching the final version of the game (which if SFV is anything to go by could be 6 months after it comes out...)

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    This section will not be visible in live published website. Below are your current settings:


    Current Number Of Columns are = 2

    Expand Posts Area =

    Gap/Space Between Posts = 12px

    Blog Post Style = card

    Use of custom card colors instead of default colors = 1

    Blog Post Card Background Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Shadow Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Border Color = current color

    Publish the website and visit your blog page to see the results

    Picture
    Support Me on Ko-fi
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    RSS Feed Widget
    Picture

    Picture
    Tweets by @mrbiffo
    Picture
    Follow us on The Facebook

    Picture

    Archives

    June 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Picture
This site Copyright Paul Rose 2016 - All images Copyright respective copyright holders
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ