The Division will have no pre-launch reviews.

[DaivRules]

“Since it’s impossible for us to populate the servers in a way that would adequately replicate playing The Division on launch day, reviewers will start playing the game along with everyone else when it’s released on March 8 – after the servers go live officially at 00:01AM Australian Eastern Daylight Time

 

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/no-early-reviews-the-division/

 

There was formerly a stigma attached with not letting reviewers do their work before release. It's refreshing for reviewers to have the exact same launch experience and everyone else who takes the gamble on new titles, as opposed to gaining access to games before the servers are overloaded.

 

Launch numbers will still be good, considering the sheer number of gamers today and the percentage who blindly pre-order based on all kinds of subjective things.

 

Just a PSA for those of you looking for a review before launch!

[voodoo_eyes]

“Since it’s impossible for us to populate the servers in a way that would adequately replicate playing The Division on launch day

 

Do they mean, the server crashing for numerous hours, because it won't hold up the amount of people playing it on Day-one, or rather attempt to play it?

[CandiBunni]

While I can sort of see where they're coming from, this still just seems like an attempt to get as many sales as they can before reviews come in and possibly sway peoples decision towards not purchasing the game. Call me cynical if you want, but after seeing this sort of stuff happen numerous times, and knowing how shady publishers/developers have been in regards to early previews and reviews, I'm hardly inclined to trust the word of any who says this. That goes especially for AAA publishers/developers, though.

I hope it turns out to be good, really I do, but this makes me far more wary of it than I already was. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Jenni

[starcrunch061]

Certainly, with film, a policy of "no pre-release reviews" is a terrible sign. I have grave doubts about this game.

[LastPisTolman]

While I can sort of see where they're coming from, this still just seems like an attempt to get as many sales as they can before reviews come in and possibly sway peoples decision towards not purchasing the game. Call me cynical if you want, but after seeing this sort of stuff happen numerous times, and knowing how shady publishers/developers have been in regards to early previews and reviews, I'm hardly inclined to trust the word of any who says this. That goes especially for AAA publishers/developers, though.

I hope it turns out to be good, really I do, but this makes me far more wary of it than I already was.

Certainly, with film, a policy of "no pre-release reviews" is a terrible sign. I have grave doubts about this game.

Normally I would be inclined to agree with, but after an alpha and two betas I don't think Ubisoft is hiding anything whatsoever. Anyone who was on the fence have had the chance to play it. Much more damning than any review could ever be.

I think what they actually don't want is completely vacant servers - because how many reviewers will there be - genuinely not replicating the actual game experience. Going into the Dark Zone on your own is pointless for example and would do the game a disservice.

Edited March 3, 2016 by LastPisTolman

[starcrunch061]

Normally I would be inclined to agree with, but after an alpha and two betas I don't think Ubisoft is hiding anything whatsoever. Anyone who was on the fence have had the chance to play it. Much more damning than any review could ever be.

I think what they actually don't want is completely vacant servers - because how many reviewers will there be - genuinely not replicating the actual game experience. Going into the Dark Zone on your own is pointless for example and would do the game a disservice.

 

Fair enough. We'll see how it turns out!

[CandiBunni]

Normally I would be inclined to agree with, but after an alpha and two betas I don't think Ubisoft is hiding anything whatsoever. Anyone who was on the fence have had the chance to play it. Much more damning than any review could ever be.

I think what they actually don't want is completely vacant servers - because how many reviewers will there be - actually genuinely not replicating the actual game experience. Going into the Dark Zone on your own is pointless.

Destiny had an "alpha" and a "beta", just as The Division has had, and look at what Bungie and Activision tried to pull upon release of the first reviews. They tried to convince people that these reviews were somehow less reliable, the criticisms less valid, just because the game wasn't as populated with "thousands of players".  Those alphas and betas were nothing more than glorified demos, and those for The Division don't seem that much different. Like Destiny's, those for The Division also seemed incredibly shallow and restrictive. Now sure, you can say "Well they're just betas/demos", but understandably I'm skeptical after disasters like Destiny. We thought we could safely assume there'd be plenty more with the full release, but it turned out that, with Destiny, we played through roughly a quarter of the base game in those demos. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Jenni

[damon8r351]

Don't see a problem with this. There was a public beta, everybody with internet access and any interest in the game had a chance to try it out before the official release. I even recorded the entire damn thing and put it on my Youtube channel just like a hundred different people did, so anyone can see for themselves what the game plays like if they didn't get a chance to play the beta. Also, I've always found the ability of reviewers to play a game thoroughly enough to be able to write an objective review about it to be seriously questionable, and you as a gamer ending up putting down $60 for a game that doesn't have enough content to warrant the $60 is part of the dice roll you're just going to have to play. I felt good about the game from what I played in the beta, and I like what I've been hearing for post-release support, so, so what. Not like I've particularly pay much attention to professional reviewers, or even other gamers anymore, because they're honestly starting to sound like South Park Yelp reviewers to me at this point.

Edited March 3, 2016 by damon8r351

[CandiBunni]

Don't see a problem with this. There was a public beta, everybody with internet access and any interest in the game had a chance to try it out before the official release. I even recorded the entire damn thing and put it on my Youtube channel just like a hundred different people did, so anyone can see for themselves what the game plays like if they didn't get a chance to play the beta. Also, I've always found the ability of reviewers to play a game thoroughly enough to be able to write an objective review about it to be seriously questionable, and you as a gamer ending up putting down $60 for a game that doesn't have enough content to warrant the $60 is part of the dice roll you're just going to have to play. I felt good about the game from what I played in the beta, and I like what I've been hearing for post-release support, so, so what. Not like I've particularly pay much attention to professional reviewers, or even other gamers anymore, because they're honestly starting to sound like South Park Yelp reviewers to me at this point.

Aside from informing the consumer of what features and modes are in the game, what resolution and framerate it runs at, the platforms it's available for, and any technical issues or things like that, reviews are entirely subjective. Whether or not something about the game is fun, enhances or detracts from the experience, if it's engaging, has nice sound or visual design, etc., those are all based on personal tastes.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Jenni

[damon8r351]

Aside from informing the consumer of what features and modes are in the game, what resolution and framerate it runs at, the platforms it's available for, and any technical issues or things like that, reviews are entirely subjective. Whether or not something about the game is fun, enhances or detracts from the experience, if it's engaging, has nice sound or visual design, etc., those are all based on personal tastes.

 

All the more reason not to care that there aren't pre-release reviews since their personal opinion often means little to me outside of hard technical data. Well done, you talked me into it even more. 

[CandiBunni]

All the more reason not to care that there aren't pre-release reviews since their personal opinion often means little to me outside of hard technical data. Well done, you talked me into it even more. 

If that's all you care about, then fair enough. It's still a shady and even scummy practise regardless. Technical performance, as well as how the game as a whole is designed, are still very important things to know. That's why reviews are still important, especially before release. I'm also not here to try and convince people not to purchase the game. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Jenni

[damon8r351]

If that's all you care about, then fair enough. It's still a shady and even scummy practise regardless. Technical performance, as well as how the game as a whole is designed, are still very important things to know. That's why reviews are still important, especially before release. I'm also not here to try and convince people not to purchase the game. 

 

I don't see it as a scummy practice at all. The people buying it on the first day are largely the ones who were sold on a game on trailers, word of mouth, hype, and gaming event showings alone, what someone else thinks about it is going to be irrelevant. The people ambivalent about it aren't going to be buying it on the first day regardless because they want to know what they're getting into first from a reviewer and other gamers, so what matter if it's the day after release or a week afterwards? You'll just have to wait a bit longer is all.

Edited March 3, 2016 by damon8r351

[Alex_Garbar]

I am extremely hyped for this game. However, that is not to say I am not concerned with the scope of the game. I am scared that we are going to get a game, and have it be a fraction of the size they advertise it to be. With those 2 DLC annoucments, underground and then that horde style one. Doesn't leave me to excited for how big this game will really be. Like Jenni has stated, I'm scared were going to get a destiny style game. In destiny, you could reach end game content within a week. Will it be the same for division? I am getting this game regardless, I enjoyed the demo, I am just hoping that we get a huge map. I don't want this game to be abandoned after a few months or a year leaving patchwork servers, no players, and unfixed bugs.

[KratosTheMighty]

Imagine every reviewer getting their ass handed to them in the dark zone. 

[CandiBunni]

I don't see it as a scummy practice at all. The people buying it on the first day are largely the ones who were sold on a game on trailers, word of mouth, hype, and gaming event showings alone, what someone else thinks about it is going to be irrelevant. The people ambivalent about it aren't going to be buying it on the first day regardless because they want to know what they're getting into first from a reviewer and other gamers, so what matter if it's the day after release or a week afterwards? You'll just have to wait a bit longer is all.

I do, because it's still withholding information that is important to the consumer and can help them make a more well informed decision in regards to whether or not to purchase the game now, later, or at all. Often times it very much seems done in order to get more sales of the game before any of the inevitable mixed to poor reviews come in. It comes across as the publisher/developer either knowing that their game isn't good, or simply not having the confidence in their own product.

Either way, those who might have planned to purchase it Day 1 can still benefit from reviews being out prior to release. As we've already established, there is more to a review than "I liked this, I liked that". There is still valuable information to be gained even if you don't agree with the reviewers opinion on the quality of the product. Technical information such as: framerate, resolution, loading times, whether or not it requires an online connection, as well as what content is included in the package, which version of the game seems to have better performance, etc. 

[RavenclawHobbit]

Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how this game being like destiny would be a bad thing. Sure destiny gets boring and even hardcore fans leave for a few months but overall I would have to say I truly enjoyed destiny. I plan to enjoy the division as well. The only negative I can think of is the dlc exclusivity to the Xbox for a 30 day period. But with that being the only downside I can not wait for this game. I just hope this game keeps my attention as long as destiny did. I played this in the closed beta and I enjoyed myself with my friends in my fire team. Can't wait to join the same team in the dark zone. Sorry if I seem to just be a fan boy, in all reality this game could end up being terrible if the game world is too small or the servers are garbage. I will always be an optimist when it comes to video games.

[damon8r351]

Either way, those who might have planned to purchase it Day 1 can still benefit from reviews being out prior to release. As we've already established, there is more to a review than "I liked this, I liked that". There is still valuable information to be gained even if you don't agree with the reviewers opinion on the quality of the product. Technical information such as: framerate, resolution, loading times, whether or not it requires an online connection, as well as what content is included in the package, which version of the game seems to have better performance, etc. 

 

All this would be important if this was a societal dystopia that made purchase of a product compulsory on the first day. I dunno, do they have stormtroopers at the electronics stores where you live, because I'm not seeing them here where I live. As no one is holding a gun to your head, and such things as Twitter, Facebook, and the comments sections of online stores exist to give you an up to the second word on these sort of technical details if you're desperate to know, it's not that big a deal to wait a couple of days.

[CandiBunni]

All this would be important if this was a societal dystopia that made purchase of a product compulsory on the first day. I dunno, do they have stormtroopers at the electronics stores where you live, because I'm not seeing them here where I live. As no one is holding a gun to your head, and such things as Twitter, Facebook, and the comments sections of online stores exist to give you an up to the second word on these sort of technical details if you're desperate to know, it's not that big a deal to wait a couple of days.

Your hypothetical scenario doesn't really make any sense, as I've not once said that anyone is forcing anyone else to purchase the game Day 1. What I said was that people do go out and buy Day 1, obviously of their own volition, and that having these reviews out before Day 1 provides them with the aforementioned information and thus allows them to make a better purchasing decision. They can, after having seen this information, decide if they still wish to purchase the game Day 1, perhaps cancel their pre-order, wait until a later date, or simply pass on the game. 

[damon8r351]

Your hypothetical scenario doesn't really make any sense, as I've not once said that anyone is forcing anyone else to purchase the game Day 1. What I said was that people do go out and buy Day 1, obviously of their own volition, and that having these reviews out before Day 1 provides them with the aforementioned information and thus allows them to make a better purchasing decision. They can, after having seen this information, decide if they still wish to purchase the game Day 1, perhaps cancel their pre-order, wait until a later date, or simply pass on the game. 

 

I'm starting to think you might be one of those people that always needs to have the last word , which is okay, I guess; the "hypothetical scenario" was obviously humor.

Edited March 3, 2016 by damon8r351

[CandiBunni]

I'm starting to think you might be one of those people that always needs to have the last word, which is okay, I guess; the "hypothetical scenario" was obviously humor.

No, I'm simply having a discussion with you. If you don't wish to, then that's fine. Please do not try to guess my motives for conversing with you, or make assumptions like that, though.

Whether or not it was meant to be humourous, it still didn't make much sense, as the importance of the information we've discussed doesn't hinge on whether or not people are forced to purchase the game.

[damon8r351]

No, I'm simply having a discussion with you. If you don't wish to, then that's fine. Please do not try to guess my motives for conversing with you, or make assumptions like that, though.

Whether or not it was meant to be humourous, it still didn't make much sense, as the importance of the information we've discussed doesn't hinge on whether or not people are forced to purchase the game.

 

Okay, well since [my concept of what constitutes] banter seems to fly over your head (because while I do know online fails to convey emotion, if that was in person it would've been in my "banter" tone of voice, which is why I still say there should be special fonts for these sorts things because you for some reason took that way more seriously than I thought you would), back to what we're discussing. Online connectivity requirements are info that's put on the game case. The content of the package is also usually put on the game case, although you can get an inkling of the same info from trailers and news articles before the release. As for whether that content is "worth" $60 or not, that's a subjective opinion. Whether it's 30fps or 60fps and what resolution it's in is also on the game case. Before you say "Yeah but sometimes games don't reach those targets", I know that. But seriously, as long as the game isn't an unplayable slideshow, I really don't think the human eye can detect the difference if the game runs at 1080p-ish. If you (not "you" personally, the general "you") are the type of guy that gets out the ruler (or whatever you use to measure these things) and say "Only 56fps and 978p? Pssh, I'll get it on sale.", just...wow. As for different versions running differently, like a digital over physical version, I really don't think this is a huge widespread issue aside from some random examples here and there, and I see that as a patchable issue. And patches are going to happen, because games as computer programs are more complicated than they have ever been.

 

Even then, all these technical details in reviews are the exception rather than the rule lately. "Professional" reviews are wrapped up in the reviewer's personal opinion and I very rarely ever see technical details like that you're discussing.

 

Also, this post down here makes a good point.

Edited March 4, 2016 by damon8r351

[Paige-ID]

How could they properly review this game anyway prior to release? If it's 90% online only, it should be reviewed once it's online. I'd hate for reviewers to say it's great, followed by it simply not working under real-life stress. 

 

This embargo actually makes complete sense. It's not shady. They released the beta for people to try it and to expose this game. They have nothing to hide. They just want a review to be reviewing what the customer will actually purchase, as opposed to reviewing a controlled LAN environment that customers won't ever experience. If anything, reviewing a game like this in a closed journalist-only session is shady. This is not.

[CandiBunni]

Okay, well since [my concept of what constitutes] banter seems to fly over your head (because while I do know online fails to convey emotion, if that was in person it would've been in my "banter" tone of voice, which is why I still say there should be special fonts for these sorts things because you for some reason took that way more seriously than I thought you would), back to what we're discussing. Online connectivity requirements are info that's put on the game case. The content of the package is also usually put on the game case, although you can get an inkling of the same info from trailers and news articles before the release. As for whether that content is "worth" $60 or not, that's a subjective opinion. Whether it's 30fps or 60fps and what resolution it's in is also on the game case. Before you say "Yeah but sometimes games don't reach those targets", I know that. But seriously, as long as the game isn't an unplayable slideshow, I really don't think the human eye can detect the difference if the game runs at 1080p-ish. If you (not "you" personally, the general "you") are the type of guy that gets out the ruler (or whatever you use to measure these things) and say "Only 56fps and 978p? Pssh, I'll get it on sale.", just...wow. As for different versions running differently, like a digital over physical version, I really don't think this is a huge widespread issue aside from some random examples here and there, and I see that as a patchable issue. And patches are going to happen, because games as computer programs are more complicated than they have ever been.

 

Even then, all these technical details in reviews are the exception rather than the rule lately. "Professional" reviews are wrapped up in the reviewer's personal opinion and I very rarely ever see technical details like that you're discussing.

 

How could they properly review this game anyway prior to release? If it's 90% online only, it should be reviewed once it's online. I'd hate for reviewers to say it's great, followed by it simply not working under real-life stress. 

 

This embargo actually makes complete sense. It's not shady. They released the beta for people to try it and to expose this game. They have nothing to hide. They just want a review to be reviewing what the customer will actually purchase, as opposed to reviewing a controlled LAN environment that customers won't ever experience. If anything, reviewing a game like this in a closed journalist-only session is shady. This is not.

damon:

" Online connectivity requirements are info that's put on the game case. The content of the package is also usually put on the game case, although you can get an inkling of the same info from trailers and news articles before the release."

 

Some of the content may be listed on the back of the case, but that isn't always the case, and it certainly does not tell players if these modes have things like connectivity issues or any other technical problems, or, for example, how much content a specific mode offers. You can get an "inkling", but reviews tend to go in more depth on these things than the brief mentions on boxart or pre-release trailers, screenshots, and interviews.

"As for whether that content is "worth" $60 or not, that's a subjective opinion. Whether it's 30fps or 60fps and what resolution it's in is also on the game case. Before you say "Yeah but sometimes games don't reach those targets", I know that. But seriously, as long as the game isn't an unplayable slideshow, I really don't think the human eye can detect the difference if the game runs at 1080p-ish. If you (not "you" personally, the general "you") are the type of guy that gets out the ruler (or whatever you use to measure these things) and say "Only 56fps and 978p? Pssh, I'll get it on sale.", just...wow."

I know that whether or not the content is worth the price is subjective. I never said anything to the contrary. As far as I'm aware, they don't actually tell you what framerate the game runs at on the cases, nor do they tell you how severe or how often the framerate dips. Some people don't notice the difference in certain resolutions, of course, but I for one do. I know that you didn't direct the very last statement towards me, but I'm not the kind of person to do that. I do, however, care about technical information like this.

"As for different versions running differently, like a digital over physical version, I really don't think this is a huge widespread issue aside from some random examples here and there, and I see that as a patchable issue. And patches are going to happen, because games as computer programs are more complicated than they have ever been."

I'm not speaking just of digital v.s. physical, but also performance between different platforms. This is something that has always been around, and many do care about this. Someone may, for example, see that PLATFORM A's version of the game runs better than PLATFORM B's, so they would instead purchase the game for PA rather than PB. Some might have initially wanted to purchase the game for the latter, but switched to the former after hearing of this difference.

Patches are nice to have when a game has issues, but when reviewing a game, you're not reviewing it as it might be down the line, after a patch. You're reviewing it as it is now, and so even if a patch comes later that addresses any problems with the initial release, those problems are still ones that should be made known to the consumer prior to their purchase.

As far as mention of technical issues goes, I see this quite often in reviews, actually. 

Paige: They did so with Destiny, and so far I don't believe they've said that this game will have larger player pools during exploration. Destiny's featured 16 players at most in any instance, with only three per Fireteam. If this is the same for The Division, then they should still be able to produce a solid review of the game, as was done so with Destiny. Destiny had a "beta" as well, in addition to an "alpha", both of which were glorified demos. The point being, we still experienced what the final game would be like in that brief bit of gameplay. They would not have to play over LAN. Reviewers could organise with one another to form play dates in order to do so. It isn't uncommon for reviewers, playing before release, to play with one another and others who have gotten the game early. 

Please refer to my earlier posts if you wish to know why I feel this is shady. Suffice it to say that this has been done in the past in order to gain more sales for a poorly made game (for example: Tony Hawks Pro Skater 5. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) before reviews come out and sway peoples decision towards the opposite.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Jenni

[MMDE]

It's gonna be shit.

[Paige-ID]

Paige: They did so with Destiny, and so far I don't believe they've said that this game will have larger player pools during exploration. Destiny's featured 16 players at most in any instance, with only three per Fireteam. If this is the same for The Division, then they should still be able to produce a solid review of the game, as was done so with Destiny. Destiny had a "beta" as well, in addition to an "alpha", both of which were glorified demos. The point being, we still experienced what the final game would be like in that brief bit of gameplay. They would not have to play over LAN. Reviewers could organise with one another to form play dates in order to do so. It isn't uncommon for reviewers, playing before release, to play with one another and others who have gotten the game early. 

Please refer to my earlier posts if you wish to know why I feel this is shady. Suffice it to say that this has been done in the past in order to gain more sales for a poorly made game (for example: Tony Hawks Pro Skater 5. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) before reviews come out and sway peoples decision towards the opposite.

I agree with some games hiding behind embargos, but this game isn't necessarily going to depend on lack of word-of-mouth. They wouldn't have a beta if that was the case.

 

Room size or not, the entire server load cannot be tested in a closed environment. World of Warcraft raids don't involve the entire community either, nor do instances, yet you couldn't just review it based on that. With an MMO-style game, you need the whole world involved. People from different regions, different playstyles, etc.

 

Both sides have a good argument, but I feel that people are seeing fire without smoke. Them wanting the press to wait until the game goes live on the world wide servers seems to me like a good thing. The previews of the game feature enough information one would need to establish whether or not the game is for them. Now we just need a real life test.