The Division will have no pre-launch reviews.

[Super-Fly Spider-Guy]

Don't care what justification they have, this is never a good sign. It's not always a bad thing, but it's never a good thing. Beta bored me anyway, but that's just me. Shame too, because back when it was announced with that trailer and diseases and shit I was pretty into it.

[CandiBunni]

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.

Many times reviewers have used embargos as I described, or tried to make deals with certain journalists in which the journalist can cover the game early, but only if they talk about it in a positive light. I'm not keen to trust a publisher/developer on something like this, simply because I've seen it being used in instances like the above far too often. The game isn't going to need word of mouth to be successful, I know. It's from AAA publisher/developer, and it's seen quite a lot of coverage and hype building. That they had a "beta" doesn't make me any less skeptical, as games like Destiny had the same, and turned out to be severely lacking in content, variety, and were just generally not that good.

Certainly the entirety of their servers cannot be tested, but what I described can still give some idea to reviewers if there are any obvious troubles. As I said in my initial post, I can somewhat understand where they're coming from, but I think my skepticism is completely understandable. 

With Destiny, you never had more than 16 people in a "world" at any given time. So long as you have at least that, if not double or triple, playing the game, from different regions of the globe, then I still think this can give some indication as to how well general matchmaking and connectivity to other players works. I do understand, though, that there is the chance of something breaking at launch when the player count exceeds their expectations and overloads the servers.

Previews are one thing, and they can let players know if it's a game they're interested in, but any faults of the game will certainly be masked or downplayed by the publishers/developers in an effort to show the game in the most positive light they can.

[LetsTurnJu-On]

This is a bad thing.. I found the beta boring, it wasn't a bad game, but it definitely wasn't good and people I've spoken to felt the same. 

 

Any publishers / devs that are proud of their game will release it early to reviewers, whether it has online or not.

 

Not releasing makes me feel they know it's not great but they have just shoved it out, seeing as it's been hyped for about 2 and half years and need to make the money back on the development.

[LastPisTolman]

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.

 

Many times reviewers have used embargos as I described, or tried to make deals with certain journalists in which the journalist can cover the game early, but only if they talk about it in a positive light. I'm not keen to trust a publisher/developer on something like this, simply because I've seen it being used in instances like the above far too often. The game isn't going to need word of mouth to be successful, I know. It's from AAA publisher/developer, and it's seen quite a lot of coverage and hype building. That they had a "beta" doesn't make me any less skeptical, as games like Destiny had the same, and turned out to be severely lacking in content, variety, and were just generally not that good.

Certainly the entirety of their servers cannot be tested, but what I described can still give some idea to reviewers if there are any obvious troubles. As I said in my initial post, I can somewhat understand where they're coming from, but I think my skepticism is completely understandable. 

With Destiny, you never had more than 16 people in a "world" at any given time. So long as you have at least that, if not double or triple, playing the game, from different regions of the globe, then I still think this can give some indication as to how well general matchmaking and connectivity to other players works. I do understand, though, that there is the chance of something breaking at launch when the player count exceeds their expectations and overloads the servers.

Previews are one thing, and they can let players know if it's a game they're interested in, but any faults of the game will certainly be masked or downplayed by the publishers/developers in an effort to show the game in the most positive light they can.

 

This is a bad thing.. I found the beta boring, it wasn't a bad game, but it definitely wasn't good and people I've spoken to felt the same. 

 

Any publishers / devs that are proud of their game will release it early to reviewers, whether it has online or not.

 

Not releasing makes me feel they know it's not great but they have just shoved it out, seeing as it's been hyped for about 2 and half years and need to make the money back on the development.

 

Jenni:

 

If we’re coming from the perspective of giving a fair shake to reporting the technical aspect of a game, isn’t it more disingenuous to send reviewers a game and allow them to post a review whilst playing on unstressed servers?

 

This game is an online one; doesn’t that speak dividends about their confidence of the online suite?  If they weren’t – they’d want some as much reporting to come out as early as possible, to stifle any negative news stories that may come forward.

 

There’s this remarkable air of entitlement as well here too.  You feel entitled to receive information for some reason, when a review being able to be posted early is nothing more than a marketing tactic.  It not being supplied early does not speak ill of the game

 

If we’re talking about norms when it comes to sending out copies, an embargo is almost never communicated by the publisher.  They leave it to the publications to communicate if they choose to, because it limits exposure.  The fact that they are making a statement is incredibly open and honest.

 

I find the constant comparisons to Destiny bizarre too.  This game is by a completely different developer and distributed by a completely different publisher.  To have a negative opinion of The Division because Destiny may or may not have failed in your eyes is insanity.

 

If that was the case – a demo for Metal Gear Solid should give a one to one report on how a Splinter Cell game will play.  A demo for Forza should accurately shed light on the next Gran Turismo.  I mean, if we’re lumping games of a genre together – we should do it for all genres shouldn’t we?

 

Besides, Destiny is a good game.  It offers a lot more content that other AAA games do, if offers exemplary mechanics and if you roll with a team of 3/6 (which is what you’re supposed to do – like it or not, if you play a racing game only in reverse it can be done but it obviously will be a shadow of what it is meant to be) it offers a completely unique experience.  No other game offers the mechanics in shooting that Destiny does, it is a trailblazer.

 

It only becomes content poor if you love it so much you play it daily.  Any game becomes content poor if you play it daily.  One there is one reason for you to be playing (a gun, a trophy) everything around it pales because it is white noise to you.  You have your eyes on one thing.

 

Destiny 1.0 was vapid, but for the first of its kind, which many forget is the case, in not only franchise but genre – I think it was a remarkable effort.  The first version of anything is lacking because it is finding its way. 

 

Look at the iPhone.  The first iteration is arguably garbage, but now it is a technological marvel.  The doors it opened, and the other properties it took with it on its meteoric rise are undeniable.

 

I’m not saying Destiny is to games as iPhone is to cellular technology, but hopefully you get my point.  I don’t judge iPhones by Blackberry’s output either.

 

I would love for you to give examples to me of where a publisher has blackmailed a publication to this extent.  If you can’t, I’m calling bullshit.  If you can, that proves it hasn’t happened here because all journalists would be screaming bloody murder about it now.  It would be a massive scoop, for any game that this would be tried on.  This sentiment is garbage and reeks of a witch-hunt sensibility.

 

To be honest, this view that a publisher has to send a game out early needs to be crushed, and I want more publishers to try and buck this trend.

I personally want fewer publishers to issue games to reviewers, and issue them to YouTubers and Twitchers.  They are infinitely more valuable because actually seeing a real person play a game unedited is infinitely more telling than a jaded reviewer playing through yet another game because s/he has to.

 

Like it or not, games journalism is on its way out.  Editorials are on their way out and I personally couldn’t care less about reviews anymore. 

 

It is ridiculous that publishers have to send their game out early if they know it’s good.  It’s a horrible restraint that reviewers put forward because they want to get the exclusive coverage early.  Games publications say only what suits them, and the notion that a game has to be bad if they don’t have it early is convenient to their purpose.  People love a conspiracy and to think that they’re cleverer than something as big as a multinational corporation.  “I can see through your ruse” the enlightened savants of the gaming world say and take to their pitchforks.

 

Pray tell – if this is so widely recognised, if it is so obviously a herald that the game is crap – why would a publisher place an embargo?  It is exactly the same as a bad review for all intents and purposes.  Worse even – it is assumed, and once people have made up their minds they’ll stick to their guns come hell or high-water.

 

Do you not see the rock and a hard place this puts all publishers in?

 

The only people that read reviews are those that have their finger on the pulse of the gaming world anyway.  Reviews aren’t as important as we like to think they are.

 

In any case, we only have to wait four more days to find out if your rampant pessimism is founded or whether my faith is rewarded.

 

LetsTurnJu-On

 

You’ve formed an opinion based upon the beta, that’s awesome.  Would you have preferred there not to have been a beta and a reviewer tell you what to think instead?

 

The beta had equal chance of alienating people as well as enrapturing them.  That isn’t something you take the chance on if you’re not confident that what you're offering is enough.

[StrickenBiged]

There's no reason they couldn't create a smaller space for the reviewers to play in together. Say they only send out 200 review codes, they could create a server for all 200 people to play on together, regardless of location or whatever else the servers use to split up the players under normal conditions. 

 

I'd have preferred review sites be given the freedom to review when they feel ready. Press freedom and all that. The better review sites know by now to wait until they can play on fully stressed servers post release anyway. If a site wants to embarrass itself by publishing a review of the pre-release product then that should be up to them. 

[damon8r351]

In any case, we only have to wait four more days to find out if your rampant pessimism is founded or whether my faith is rewarded.

 

I was like for the whole post, but you do know that for people who have already made up their mind to not like any particular game, the game had better be a critical smash hit or otherwise it's an utter failure. "It only got a 7.5? Pssh, I'll get it if it shows up on PS+."

[LastPisTolman]

There's no reason they couldn't create a smaller space for the reviewers to play in together. Say they only send out 200 review codes, they could create a server for all 200 people to play on together, regardless of location or whatever else the servers use to split up the players under normal conditions. 

 

I'd have preferred review sites be given the freedom to review when they feel ready. Press freedom and all that. The better review sites know by now to wait until they can play on fully stressed servers post release anyway. If a site wants to embarrass itself by publishing a review of the pre-release product then that should be up to them. 

 

Sorry, but why should they?

 

You’re proposing that not only are they expected to send out the free copies of games so they can perform their service to the community, but they also have to divert resource to creating customised, online suites for reviewers to play in.

 

Diverting resource when typically the last days are the most hectic – a game may go gold but that doesn’t stop the preparations.  Day One patches don’t need to be debated here for an online only game. 

 

So the humans making this game need to do even more work so the insatiable, unwashed horde may have something different to argue about in forums.  It’s not even constructive work. 

 

Johnny B Sallso: “Did you hear Ubisoft made a fake server for the journos, lol they must be trying to hide how shit their real servers are #rekt”.

 

You don’t have a right to have a full breakdown of something day one.  If you’re on the fence, wait.  If you’re such an out of control consumerist lackey that a review not being available before launch and you have to wait one more week to make an informed (I don’t agree with this word, but for the sake of conversation) purchase your view of the world is completely out of kilter. 

 

I’m coming as a rampant fanboy I fear, but I’m becoming this way because I feel the other side of the argument is so unfair.  I wish this was about a game I wasn’t interested in so I could be objective.

 

 

I was like for the whole post, but you do know that for people who have already made up their mind to not like any particular game, the game had better be a critical smash hit or otherwise it's an utter failure. "It only got a 7.5? Pssh, I'll get it if it shows up on PS+."

 

I mainly hope that this game is fantastic solely to not add another into the list of confirmation bias for those naysaying. Even if it it is people will outcry purchased reviews.  

 

"Oh they purchased adverts on IGN, obviously they gave it a 9 "

 

I'm looking forward to the quotes I'll get next week from here.

[Parker]

I don't see why people even care about reviews anymore. If the game gets a good score people just claim the developers paid the reviewer off, if the game doesn't score as high as someone would like, the reviewer is obviously just an idiot. 

 

Personally I think Ubisoft's explanation makes perfect sense. Like others have said, there have been multiple chances to play the game and those who are going to buy it on day one have likely already played it, know what they're getting into and review scores wouldn't matter to them. 

 

 

Parker

[StrickenBiged]

Sorry, but why should they?

 

You’re proposing that not only are they expected to send out the free copies of games so they can perform their service to the community, but they also have to divert resource to creating customised, online suites for reviewers to play in.

 

Diverting resource when typically the last days are the most hectic – a game may go gold but that doesn’t stop the preparations.  Day One patches don’t need to be debated here for an online only game. 

 

So the humans making this game need to do even more work so the insatiable, unwashed horde may have something different to argue about in forums.  It’s not even constructive work. 

 

Johnny B Sallso: “Did you hear Ubisoft made a fake server for the journos, lol they must be trying to hide how shit their real servers are #rekt”.

 

You don’t have a right to have a full breakdown of something day one.  If you’re on the fence, wait.  If you’re such an out of control consumerist lackey that a review not being available before launch and you have to wait one more week to make an informed (I don’t agree with this word, but for the sake of conversation) purchase your view of the world is completely out of kilter. 

 

I’m coming as a rampant fanboy I fear, but I’m becoming this way because I feel the other side of the argument is so unfair.  I wish this was about a game I wasn’t interested in so I could be objective.

 

Giving out review code is pretty standard practice. Typically, when publishers don't do so it's because they know it will not review well. 

 

Why should they... Hmm. Well, to serve their own and the consumer interests; it would lead to more fully fleshed out reviews. Now that reviewers aren't going to be given the time to play the game pre-release, as usually happens, I imagine that the various gaming sites will be racing to get their reviews up as soon as possible following release in order to get their clicks before anyone else. Many will probably just recycle their coverage/commentary on the Beta while someone races through however many story missions they feel is minimal to fill in any blanks. I assume that Ubi would prefer that reviews, when they are published, reflect the product rather than the Beta.

 

End of the day, they can do what they like. Personally, I prefer to have reviews up before release in most cases so that consumers who are on the fence have something critical (not as in "bad", as in "an analysis of the merits of a piece of art) which they can base their purchasing decisions on. 

 

I hope that "consumerist lackey" comment was directed at the general "you" rather than me? Anyway, you've got to recognise that the marketing machine is very slick these days. People like you and me, who play many games, read reviews, news and websites about the industry, and come onto websites to debate and discuss games represent the minority of gamers. Most people base their purchasing decisions on the pretty graphics, in-store cardboard displays, TV, bus and billboard ads, etc. Lots of research has been done to show that marketing spend trumps review scores when it comes to selling games, so I doubt whether reviews are available Day 1 will make much of a difference anyway.

[starcrunch061]

You don’t have a right to have a full breakdown of something day one.  If you’re on the fence, wait.  If you’re such an out of control consumerist lackey that a review not being available before launch and you have to wait one more week to make an informed (I don’t agree with this word, but for the sake of conversation) purchase your view of the world is completely out of kilter. 

 

Are you choking on rage here? I have no idea what you're trying to say. On the one hand, you tell people on the fence to wait (a perfectly good viewpoint, regardless of whether I agree or not). But in the next sentence, you claim that people who wait a week due to the absence of reviews are "consumerist lackeys" with a worldview that is "completely out of kilter". 

 

Anyway, getting back to the thread, stricken is 100% correct in this: it is obviously the right of the producer to make a game available for review. Quite honestly, while I don't like the practice, I doubt it's the case that this many people read reviews. If a game is expecting sales in the millions, do we really think that those reviews are getting those kinds of clicks? At the end of the day, it's just something to complain about...

...

...but of course, we're on an internet forum in part to complain about things, so I'm certainly not against that.

[LastPisTolman]

Giving out review code is pretty standard practice. Typically, when publishers don't do so it's because they know it will not review well. 

 

Why should they... Hmm. Well, to serve their own and the consumer interests; it would lead to more fully fleshed out reviews. Now that reviewers aren't going to be given the time to play the game pre-release, as usually happens, I imagine that the various gaming sites will be racing to get their reviews up as soon as possible following release in order to get their clicks before anyone else. Many will probably just recycle their coverage/commentary on the Beta while someone races through however many story missions they feel is minimal to fill in any blanks. I assume that Ubi would prefer that reviews, when they are published, reflect the product rather than the Beta.

 

End of the day, they can do what they like. Personally, I prefer to have reviews up before release in most cases so that consumers who are on the fence have something critical (not as in "bad", as in "an analysis of the merits of a piece of art) which they can base their purchasing decisions on. 

 

I hope that "consumerist lackey" comment was directed at the general "you" rather than me? Anyway, you've got to recognise that the marketing machine is very slick these days. People like you and me, who play many games, read reviews, news and websites about the industry, and come onto websites to debate and discuss games represent the minority of gamers. Most people base their purchasing decisions on the pretty graphics, in-store cardboard displays, TV, bus and billboard ads, etc. Lots of research has been done to show that marketing spend trumps review scores when it comes to selling games, so I doubt whether reviews are available Day 1 will make much of a difference anyway.

That doesn’t make sense.  They can be trusted pre-release – but not post?  If you’re questioning the validity of a review post release then you can’t in the same breath tell me it can be trusted pre-release.  The same chase to be first is still there – all publications still have the same time constraints regardless of when the public are set loose.

 

And again, I want this trend of pre-release reviews being the normal gone.  The

 

The consumerist lackey comment is definitely intended towards the royal you.  Should probably have said “the”. J

 

Exactly, the fact that the Division is being advertised from pillar to post is going to ensure its success.

 

I commute from one reasonably sized city to a much larger one each day, and they are both plastered with how “When society falls, we rise”.  Not to mention there is no competition this month.  The consumerist lackey has money burning a hole in his pocket from this month’s paycheque and it all definitely needs to be spent before he receives his next.

 

This game is going to sell gangbusters. 

Are you choking on rage here? I have no idea what you're trying to say. On the one hand, you tell people on the fence to wait (a perfectly good viewpoint, regardless of whether I agree or not). But in the next sentence, you claim that people who wait a week due to the absence of reviews are "consumerist lackeys" with a worldview that is "completely out of kilter". 

 

Anyway, getting back to the thread, stricken is 100% correct in this: it is obviously the right of the producer to make a game available for review. Quite honestly, while I don't like the practice, I doubt it's the case that this many people read reviews. If a game is expecting sales in the millions, do we really think that those reviews are getting those kinds of clicks? At the end of the day, it's just something to complain about...

...

...but of course, we're on an internet forum in part to complain about things, so I'm certainly not against that.

 

No I don't.  Read it more carefully.  I say if you CAN'T wait a week you are a consumerist lackey.  What you are suggesting, if I was to say it, wouldn’t make sense.  Maybe you’re choking on your own loftiness and hurried rush to judgment.

 

I don’t see where the implication of my being angry is here.  I can disagree with people and it still be a calm affair.  Maybe you like to debate with furious overtones, but I don’t.  Anger implies that I’ve lost control, yet I like to think my writing is very much considered.

 

Edit:  On further read I understand where your read of it could be arrived from.  I should have probably structured the sentence better.

Edited March 4, 2016 by LastPisTolman

[StrickenBiged]

That doesn’t make sense.  They can be trusted pre-release – but not post?  If you’re questioning the validity of a review post release then you can’t in the same breath tell me it can be trusted pre-release.  The same chase to be first is still there – all publications still have the same time constraints regardless of when the public are set loose.

 

That's the upside of embargoes, from the reviewer's perspective. They'll typically get a week or two with the game before the embargo lifts. With The Division, there's no embargo so it's a free-for-all where each site will be incentivised to be "first" so that they can gather the most clicks. 

 

I think the most trustworthy reviews come from a mixture of pre-release time-taking and post-release "Day 1 patch & online stress-testing" (where that's relevant). The Division is only going to get the latter and, with no embargo, that is going to be a rush job from many websites. 

[LastPisTolman]

That's the upside of embargoes, from the reviewer's perspective. They'll typically get a week or two with the game before the embargo lifts. With The Division, there's no embargo so it's a free-for-all where each site will be incentivised to be "first" so that they can gather the most clicks. 

 

I think the most trustworthy reviews come from a mixture of pre-release time-taking and post-release "Day 1 patch & online stress-testing" (where that's relevant). The Division is only going to get the latter and, with no embargo, that is going to be a rush job from many websites. 

 

I get what you’re saying, if reviewers all have two days (arbitrary example) then they are all even.

 

Publications rushing to get a review out isn’t a concern of Ubisoft.  That’s on a whole new Meta level into the revenue stream of the publications.

 

If they have the integrity to hold fire on a review to stress test retail experience, I can’t see why you disbelieve their ability to take their time post release.

 

We’re getting into a different tangent I feel; the trustworthiness of reviews.

 

You’re also incentivised to be a contrarian, people like extremes so the reviews on the polar opposites of the spectrum gather more attention.

 

Look at Star – I must be seething with anger because I wrote something.  I can’t be of normal temperament.  I have to be supercharged.

 

What I’m trying to say is, is that if you see a review being able to be discredited, then you have to discredit the whole system.  If someone will take a bribe to stay quiet about a beating, chances are it’ll just take more money to keep a murder quiet.

Edited March 4, 2016 by LastPisTolman

[DaivRules]

Let's be honest. The majority of the buying population doesn't read reviews, especially pre-release where they might explain the special circumstances they're reviewing under. They read review scores. Scores tell all in their eyes. It's like people who judge games on how long it takes to obtain the platinum trophy and that's all the game is worth. 

 

If all reviews magically stopped today and only released after launches, nothing of value would be lost. People are more connected than ever and word of mouth travels faster than it ever has. The days of needing "professional" reviews to market products are long since past.

[starcrunch061]

Edit:  On further read I understand where your read of it could be arrived from.  I should have probably structured the sentence better.

 

LOL - that's OK. I literally didn't know from where you were arguing; it wasn't meant to be rhetorical. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

 

Look at Star – I must be seething with anger because I wrote something.  I can’t be of normal temperament.  I have to be supercharged.

 

Sorry about that. I meant no insult - that remark was tongue in cheek (it's actually a line from the Simpsons). 

[CandiBunni]

Jenni:

 

If we’re coming from the perspective of giving a fair shake to reporting the technical aspect of a game, isn’t it more disingenuous to send reviewers a game and allow them to post a review whilst playing on unstressed servers?

 

This game is an online one; doesn’t that speak dividends about their confidence of the online suite?  If they weren’t – they’d want some as much reporting to come out as early as possible, to stifle any negative news stories that may come forward.

 

There’s this remarkable air of entitlement as well here too.  You feel entitled to receive information for some reason, when a review being able to be posted early is nothing more than a marketing tactic.  It not being supplied early does not speak ill of the game

 

If we’re talking about norms when it comes to sending out copies, an embargo is almost never communicated by the publisher.  They leave it to the publications to communicate if they choose to, because it limits exposure.  The fact that they are making a statement is incredibly open and honest.

 

I find the constant comparisons to Destiny bizarre too.  This game is by a completely different developer and distributed by a completely different publisher.  To have a negative opinion of The Division because Destiny may or may not have failed in your eyes is insanity.

 

If that was the case – a demo for Metal Gear Solid should give a one to one report on how a Splinter Cell game will play.  A demo for Forza should accurately shed light on the next Gran Turismo.  I mean, if we’re lumping games of a genre together – we should do it for all genres shouldn’t we?

 

Besides, Destiny is a good game.  It offers a lot more content that other AAA games do, if offers exemplary mechanics and if you roll with a team of 3/6 (which is what you’re supposed to do – like it or not, if you play a racing game only in reverse it can be done but it obviously will be a shadow of what it is meant to be) it offers a completely unique experience.  No other game offers the mechanics in shooting that Destiny does, it is a trailblazer.

 

It only becomes content poor if you love it so much you play it daily.  Any game becomes content poor if you play it daily.  One there is one reason for you to be playing (a gun, a trophy) everything around it pales because it is white noise to you.  You have your eyes on one thing.

 

Destiny 1.0 was vapid, but for the first of its kind, which many forget is the case, in not only franchise but genre – I think it was a remarkable effort.  The first version of anything is lacking because it is finding its way. 

 

Look at the iPhone.  The first iteration is arguably garbage, but now it is a technological marvel.  The doors it opened, and the other properties it took with it on its meteoric rise are undeniable.

 

I’m not saying Destiny is to games as iPhone is to cellular technology, but hopefully you get my point.  I don’t judge iPhones by Blackberry’s output either.

 

I would love for you to give examples to me of where a publisher has blackmailed a publication to this extent.  If you can’t, I’m calling bullshit.  If you can, that proves it hasn’t happened here because all journalists would be screaming bloody murder about it now.  It would be a massive scoop, for any game that this would be tried on.  This sentiment is garbage and reeks of a witch-hunt sensibility.

 

To be honest, this view that a publisher has to send a game out early needs to be crushed, and I want more publishers to try and buck this trend.

I personally want fewer publishers to issue games to reviewers, and issue them to YouTubers and Twitchers.  They are infinitely more valuable because actually seeing a real person play a game unedited is infinitely more telling than a jaded reviewer playing through yet another game because s/he has to.

 

Like it or not, games journalism is on its way out.  Editorials are on their way out and I personally couldn’t care less about reviews anymore. 

 

It is ridiculous that publishers have to send their game out early if they know it’s good.  It’s a horrible restraint that reviewers put forward because they want to get the exclusive coverage early.  Games publications say only what suits them, and the notion that a game has to be bad if they don’t have it early is convenient to their purpose.  People love a conspiracy and to think that they’re cleverer than something as big as a multinational corporation.  “I can see through your ruse” the enlightened savants of the gaming world say and take to their pitchforks.

 

Pray tell – if this is so widely recognised, if it is so obviously a herald that the game is crap – why would a publisher place an embargo?  It is exactly the same as a bad review for all intents and purposes.  Worse even – it is assumed, and once people have made up their minds they’ll stick to their guns come hell or high-water.

 

Do you not see the rock and a hard place this puts all publishers in?

 

The only people that read reviews are those that have their finger on the pulse of the gaming world anyway.  Reviews aren’t as important as we like to think they are.

 

In any case, we only have to wait four more days to find out if your rampant pessimism is founded or whether my faith is rewarded.

"If we’re coming from the perspective of giving a fair shake to reporting the technical aspect of a game, isn’t it more disingenuous to send reviewers a game and allow them to post a review whilst playing on unstressed servers?"

 

Once again, while I can somewhat understand where they are coming from, their past behaviour, and that of other publishers/developers, has left me wary to take them on their word.

I would also like to point out that I haven't any personal vendetta against The Division. I would love for it to be a great game. I would love for every game to be great.

What I take issue with, what I am concerned about, is Ubisoft's decision to hold off reviews until the day of release. My skepticism lies not solely with the game. The bulk of it is in regards to the sincerity of Ubisoft's intentions, and their response. That which I have for The Division itself is the same I do for any game.

 

"This game is an online one; doesn’t that speak dividends about their confidence of the online suite?  If they weren’t – they’d want some as much reporting to come out as early as possible, to stifle any negative news stories that may come forward."

 

Not necessarily, no. Remember, Activision and Bungie tried to dismiss the criticisms of early reviews by saying that people should wait until the game was populated with thousands of players. Even when it was, however, those criticisms still stood.

 

"There’s this remarkable air of entitlement as well here too.  You feel entitled to receive information for some reason, when a review being able to be posted early is nothing more than a marketing tactic.  It not being supplied early does not speak ill of the game"

 

I don't think it's entitlement to want the consumer to know as much as information as possible on a game's final build before they purchase it. That I would like reviews in general out before the game is out is not me being entitled, either. It's due to the fact that I know many people will plan to pick the game up Day 1, but having reviews up before then can give people valuable information before they make the purchase, and before the general consumer can possibly make a purchasing decision they later regret. When it comes to server stability, perhaps they can't judge how that will pan out when the general population gets a hold of the game, but for pretty much anything else, I feel they can.

Yes indeed people could wait, be patient, and wait for reviews on the day of, before, or even a few days after, but we both know that isn't realistically going to happen. Most people tend to want the game as soon as possible, so having the review out even sooner can help inform them before then.

 

It doesn't automatically mean the game is going to be poor if a review doesn't come out before release, no, but it certainly does raise a red flag  for me due to the way embargos have been abused in the past.

 

"If we’re talking about norms when it comes to sending out copies, an embargo is almost never communicated by the publisher.  They leave it to the publications to communicate if they choose to, because it limits exposure.  The fact that they are making a statement is incredibly open and honest."

 

The publisher/developer decides whether or not to set an embargo, and for how long. Failing to comply with said embargos may not be illegal, but it certainly can result in the reviewers or websites being blacklisted by those publishers/developers. Their making a statement isn't necessarily them being open and honest. Now, they might very well be being sincere, but there is no certain way to tell.  As I mentioned before, embargos have been abused in the past, and it always leaves me more skeptical than optimistic. This is especially so when a publisher/developer has done it themselves.

 

"I find the constant comparisons to Destiny bizarre too.  This game is by a completely different developer and distributed by a completely different publisher.  To have a negative opinion of The Division because Destiny may or may not have failed in your eyes is insanity."

 

I don't have a negative opinion of The Division because I have issues with Destiny. I have issues with Destiny, but I also still like the game.

 

My comparison is mainly drawn between the way both publishers/developers have said that players/reviewers should wait until the game is populated with more people, which doesn't necessarily invalidate the criticisms that could be made towards the game, as was demonstrated with Destiny.

 

I made a few smaller comparisons based on a little bit of speculation in regards to how The Division might be handling its "worlds", player counts, specifically the numbers of players in a party and out in the world at any given time, but that's it. The point of that comparison was to make the point that, if those particular aspects mirror Destiny's, then there should be little issue reviewing it early as with Destiny.

 

"If that was the case – a demo for Metal Gear Solid should give a one to one report on how a Splinter Cell game will play.  A demo for Forza should accurately shed light on the next Gran Turismo.  I mean, if we’re lumping games of a genre together – we should do it for all genres shouldn’t we?"

 

I never made any comparisons or assumptions like those you describe here.

 

"Besides, Destiny is a good game.  It offers a lot more content that other AAA games do, if offers exemplary mechanics and if you roll with a team of 3/6 (which is what you’re supposed to do – like it or not, if you play a racing game only in reverse it can be done but it obviously will be a shadow of what it is meant to be) it offers a completely unique experience.  No other game offers the mechanics in shooting that Destiny does, it is a trailblazer."

 

Destiny is good now, but on release I found it to be quite terrible. It was not only short on content, but the content that was there was incredibly flawed, tedious, and unimaginative. The game has much more content now, and while the mechanics have seen some improvement, there still exists the huge problem of that content being incredibly tedious. There's still a severe lack of meaningful variation. 

 

Destiny's shooting mechanics are well designed, but they are far from unique. Its core shooting uses mechanics we've seen already, and its RPG elements have been done before as well. Look to Borderlands as a recent example. None of Destiny's mechanics, whether they be in the shooting or RPG elements, are new or unique. 

"It only becomes content poor if you love it so much you play it daily.  Any game becomes content poor if you play it daily.  One there is one reason for you to be playing (a gun, a trophy) everything around it pales because it is white noise to you.  You have your eyes on one thing."

 

Not necessarily, no. One needn't play a game daily to find it either lacking in content, or for that content to be flawed.

 

"Destiny 1.0 was vapid, but for the first of its kind, which many forget is the case, in not only franchise but genre – I think it was a remarkable effort.  The first version of anything is lacking because it is finding its way. "

 

It was not the first of its kind in regards to anything. Like I said, what it does has been done before. Its shooting and RPG mechanics have been done before. Its allowing players to see others while exploring the "worlds" has been done before. Even if it were the first of its kind, it should, of course, still be criticised for what it does wrong.

 

"I’m not saying Destiny is to games as iPhone is to cellular technology, but hopefully you get my point.  I don’t judge iPhones by Blackberry’s output either."

I know you're not saying that. I'm not judging The Division based on how I feel about Destiny. If I'm judging it at all, it's based purely on what I've seen of its gameplay.

 

"I would love for you to give examples to me of where a publisher has blackmailed a publication to this extent.  If you can’t, I’m calling bullshit.  If you can, that proves it hasn’t happened here because all journalists would be screaming bloody murder about it now.  It would be a massive scoop, for any game that this would be tried on.  This sentiment is garbage and reeks of a witch-hunt sensibility."

I did not say blackmailed. I said blacklisted. For a reviewer or website to be blacklisted by a publisher/developer can mean a number of things, including no longer being sent review copies, or sent copies weeks later, or being denied other media such as previews, interviews, behind-the-scenes features, being invited to press events, and other content with which to cover a game.

I also did not say, nor was I implying, that anyone was being blackmailed for anything. I stated that it was concerning and raised suspicion from me when publishers/developers do not allow reviews and other coverage of the final build of a game until the day of release or afterwards.

 

"To be honest, this view that a publisher has to send a game out early needs to be crushed, and I want more publishers to try and buck this trend.

I personally want fewer publishers to issue games to reviewers, and issue them to YouTubers and Twitchers.  They are infinitely more valuable because actually seeing a real person play a game unedited is infinitely more telling than a jaded reviewer playing through yet another game because s/he has to."

 

It does not need to be crushed. There is nothing inherently wrong with issuing review copies or having reviews out before the game is released. It allows people the chance to see the final build of the game, learn of any technical issues, and decide if they still wish to go ahead and purchase it. All while people are still able to cancel pre-orders and before any pick it up Day 1 and end up regretting that decision. I think that refusing to issue review copies, as well as preventing the release of reviews until after the game is out, is not only shady, but would result in far more outlets rushing to get them out ahead of the competition. That would result in poorer quality reviews.

 

I also do not find it a good idea to limit it solely to Youtubers and Twitch streamers. Review copies should be issued to all major or otherwise influential review outlets which have a large audience. All reviewers are real people, and whether or not one likes Reviewer A over Reviewer B doesn't mean that Reviewer B should be treated differently. If you don't trust one outlet, don't pay them any mind. Others do trust those you might not personally care for, and their content shouldn't have to suffer for that. 

A website or individual reviewer being blackisted puts them at a huge disadvantage compared to those who haven't been. Most people tend to flock to the reviews which come out either days before or on release. When one has to wait to pick up the game, play through it, and then write up their review, most people have already seen the reviews from other outlets and decided whether or not to pick the game up. The blacklisted reviewer thus loses out on more potential viewers (and revenue generated by those viewers). There is also the issue of them trying to rush through the game, and the review, in an effort to still get as much of that traffic as they can before it dies down even more.

 

"It is ridiculous that publishers have to send their game out early if they know it’s good.  It’s a horrible restraint that reviewers put forward because they want to get the exclusive coverage early.  Games publications say only what suits them, and the notion that a game has to be bad if they don’t have it early is convenient to their purpose.  People love a conspiracy and to think that they’re cleverer than something as big as a multinational corporation.  “I can see through your ruse” the enlightened savants of the gaming world say and take to their pitchforks."

 

How is it ridiculous? The publisher/developer might think their game is good, but not everyone is going to agree. I don't find it okay to withhold review copies or put up review embargoes until hours (or days) after the game has been released. Trying to keep reviewers from informing the general public about the final quality of a game long enough to get the consumer to buy your product first is not okay to me.

 

Publishers and developers aren't entirely innocent, and I don't at all see the act of wanting review copies in order to publish reviews prior to release to be unfair or unreasonable. Publishers and developers also say and do what suits them, far more than they do the consumer it seems. There are numerous examples of them engaging in anti-consumer business practises such as bait and switching, of locking content away on discs, and flat out lying about what a game is going to look like or play like.

Not having a review out early does not mean the game is automatically bad, but I never said anything to the contrary. What I said was that it raises concern from me.

 

"Pray tell – if this is so widely recognised, if it is so obviously a herald that the game is crap – why would a publisher place an embargo?  It is exactly the same as a bad review for all intents and purposes.  Worse even – it is assumed, and once people have made up their minds they’ll stick to their guns come hell or high-water."

I did not say that having an embargo means the game is awful. Embargoes are not inherently bad. They can actually be quite useful, as they allow an equal chance for reviewers to play and produce a review before those reviews are released to the public. It is when they are used badly (ex: Reviews allowed to be made public only after the game has been available for purchase, especially days after, in an attempt to get more sales before negative press sets in) that I take issue.

 

Not every game for which this happens turns out to bad (or suffering from severe technical issues) but it does seem to be the case a lot of the time, especially for AAA publishers.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/11/7193415/assassins-creed-unity-review-embargo

 

"The only people that read reviews are those that have their finger on the pulse of the gaming world anyway.  Reviews aren’t as important as we like to think they are."

This is not the case. Many look to websites and individual reviewers because they usually agree with their opinions or find their reviews to be informative and helpful towards making their decision. Most reviews tend not only to speak of how the reviewer feels about the different aspects of a game, but also serve to highlight any technical shortcomings or lack of content. Certainly there are people as you describe, but likewise there are also many like the above.

 

They might not be so important to you, and that is absolutely fine, but for many people they are helpful, informative, and sources they find reliable to base their purchasing decisions on. That being said, they aren't the only means of doing so, nor do I wish to imply they're the best. However, I have found many reviews in which the reviewers thoughts very much mirror my own.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Jenni

[LastPisTolman]

 

Once again, ... own.

 

 

I'll address points in order. I lack the motivation to helpfully interlace my statements into yours.

 

I guess I'm more of the perspective of innocent until proven guilty.  In this particular instance, nothing unsavoury has been enacted in relation to the publication of the game nor the development.

 

With one exception that irks me; Microsoft have purchased 30 day exclusivity for all future content for the Division.  If you charge the same price, your consumers should get the same product.  If Microsoft have a product 30 days earlier, it should be cheaper when it arrives elsewhere.  Otherwise you're spitting directly in the face of your customers.

 

Activision and Bungie did yes, Ubisoft and Massive did not.  When the Division 2 is coming out, and the DIvision was garvage - then I'll 100% agree with you.

 

To be honest, Ubisoft is more concerned about the perception its intellectual property than most.  Now the market has spoken regarding Assassin's Creed, they're resting it to bring it back to their qualitative markers.  They messed up with Watch_Dogs so they're shelved it for a time.

 

If they're aiming for this to be a platform which I really think they should be, hiding reviews for 7 days on the grand scale will be inconsequential.  They achieve a higher profit margin with the sale of digital content - and this will be the main concern.

 

It isn't entitlement to want to know as much information as possible, it's entitlement to expect a review prior to a product's release.

 

If you want to get the game Day One, and you're that unsure, and the idea of waiting a little longer pains you, you are the consumerist lackey I referred to in a different post.  

 

Information isn't available Day One or never - you're more than capable of waiting to make an informed purchase, if that is what you define as informed - a review.

 

If isn't realistically going to happen (wait) than more fool the individual that can't contain themselves.  They should exhibit more self control because we're talking a product built completely for entertainment - it isn't needed.

 

Just because you're unable to control yourself, again shouldn't reflect ill of a publisher's choice of action.  If anything - good for Ubisoft.  For seeing the market as the impatient savages as it is, if that is what is being suggested.

 

Trust me, I don't need educating on what an embargo, but thank you.  Also, the latest an embargo can be placed is the point at which the game can be purchased by the public.

 

Them making a statement is open and honest - it isn't exactly secretive and clandestine.

 

Destiny has a different aim than what the Division has.  They share top tier sensibilities, but once boiled down are worlds apart.  Like Devil May Cry to God of War.

 

My point with this is that bar sharing a genre, there is nothing to compare Destiny and the Division.  So in using Destiny's release schedule to imply any form of commentary on the Division is misguided.

 

Destiny was a good game.  It then turned very good.  If we place emphasis in the metascore (which we must be because the review here is being described as critical) 76ish puts it in the good region.

 

I didn't say you needed to play a game daily, I said if you play a game daily it becomes lacking in content.  Destiny isn't lacking in content.  You follow the critical path, it has plenty and progression is spaced well enough apart.  Whether that content is good is different.

 

Destiny is the first of its kind.  Show me the game that has the raid mechanics that it does for example.  Chances are it will be an RPG.  Again, Destiny sharing traits with another does not remove its originality.  Borderlands is Diablo if we're defining by loot mechanics.

 

Obviously it can be criticised - but I'm more lenient on something that fails in some regards whilst paving the ground, than I am of another JRPG that does the same nonsense as the rest of them and still fails.

 

You were insinuating that publications are strong armed into posting positive comments in exchange for early coverage.

 

It does need to be crushed, when a market assumes anything and you have to fall in line with that vision else you be eyed as untrustworthy it is a problem.  The merits of actions should be taken in a vacuum.  If they prove to be of ill repute then, that is fine.

 

Again, we're circling the point of it isn't difficult to wait.  If a company was punished by the consumers of poor first week sales because the review wasn't available until a week later it would stop.  But it doesn't.  First week sales are always the highest because people have no patience.  No higher virtues except snatch everything as soon as they can.

 

If you can't see why its ridiculous that every company is held to same ideal irregardless of circumstance I'm confused.  It's akin to stereotyping.  If I kick a ball I'll give a different result to when you kick it.  Everyone performing an action should be held to their own alone and not tarred with a collective brush.

 

And again - no one is forcing anyone to buy a game before a review.

 

Many read reviews, the majority do not.  That is why Homefront sold gangbusters.  That is why Destiny annihilates.   That is why Tearaway sells nothing.  That is why the Vita bombed.  Reviews, on the grand scale, are completely unimportant.

 

They serve mainly as a conversation piece for people to hold aloft as agreeing with their opinion or burning should they disagree with them.  Venture into the comments of any further, scroll down to the sixth person and you'll witness an argument.  Most of the time about the score and not the content.

 

I feel my whole post can be summarised as:

 

If Ubisoft make you wait for the review, make them wait for your sale.  If you are incapable of doing that - that is more a reflection of your character than it is of a company's business practice.

Edited March 6, 2016 by LastPisTolman

[RawrItsAndrew]

If the quote from.them.is true then how the hell do two people already have trophies earnt in the game

[dodgedoors]

If the quote from.them.is true then how the hell do two people already have trophies earnt in the game

 

Streamers and guide writers probably