Bethesda wants your money before the reviews hit

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

There is merit in that there are additional things that go with a limited edition, but I do not ship a limited edition in the same regard as a pre-order. You get the limited edition because you want the content that is available from that limited service, but the pre-order of the base game, regardless of the paltry content given with it does not hold up to that same standard that an order for a limited edition gives you.

 

I would argue in that you place an order for that limited service and not so much the game that comes with it whereas there are people who preorder their games, the base game mind you, with nothing more than a chance to acquire a unique cosmetic in game skin or extra money or whatever, which is not a lasting reward. A limited edition that gives you a statue or unique case or figurine or whatever is a physical lasting reward but a digital in game preorder bonus is a pointless gesture and has no lasting value.

 

That is my opinion as the original concept of 'preordering' was so that you could guarantee the acquirement of a limited source (game, movie, board game) which is not the case today as their is rarely anything 'limited' to most modern preorder opportunities.

 

Agreed, and indeed the only pre-orders I have placed in the past decade were because of a pre-order sale.

 

I would have bought Day Of The Tentacle Remastered (a digital only game) day one anyway, giving me a discount only sweetened the deal. Though without the sale I still would have bought that game day one, but seeing as it's digital there is no fear of running out of copies. There is the added benefit with a digital pre-order these days that it will be downloaded and ready to go at midnight...

[StrickenBiged]

I don't care for official reviews, I care for the opinions of the many so I can see a main consensus and then I'll still want to make up my own mind.

 

What's an "official" review? 

 

How do you go about ascertaining the "opinions of the many"? Metacritic user scores? Steam user reviews? All have been known to suffer from internet-fanboyism, metabombing, etc. 

 

How do you square this policy of going with the majority consensus with pre-ordering? How can there be a consensus before a game is launched?

 

Yes, by all means, make up your own mind. We all do. But reviews do help me avoid games which are going to be an obvious waste of my time.

[Bullstomp]

Reviewers are worthless so I don't see this affecting anything in the long run...

In fact, I don't recall the last time I read a review and agreed with it. It's basically "random-jackass" inserts "hype machine_01" for 30 minutes, plays/multitasks, and types up some generic tripe.

Think about it, when was the last time you read a review and learned about a game's multiplayer/connectivity or trophy attainability? I'd rather entrust the fine readers of psnprofiles.com for such things.

[IMaySlayLizDaw94]

I never read reviews

I take pride in not being a shameless sheep

Who cares what number a game is assigned

At the end of the day if I like it I couldn't give a damn why reviews say. And I've hated games that review well

Case in point; I hated the Disgaea games with a passion despite them reviewing well

I mean those games are debase trash with no real merit to them yet they review will

Many games I hate review well at the end of the day

[StrickenBiged]

Wow, there's a lot of review-hate on this thread. 

 

Dare I say it, maybe some of you are just reading bad reviews?

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

This thread is an absolute headache. If you ever want to know what's wrong with game journalism as a whole take sample this thread's rampant corporate apologists.

Reviews don't mean jack shit. The only thing that can definitively tell you if you will enjoy a game is to experience it yourself firsthand.

>Bethesda wants your money

Correction: ALL developers want your money. That's why they develop games.

Not really. Reviews can help you make an informed decision based on aggregates. If you've got a game with 50 or so reviews and every one of those says the game is glitchy for example or has a bad story, there is likely something wrong with that element in the game. It can help you either curve your expectations or rebound from your purchase entirely because those people have ultimately played the game you haven't and they lend you their experience. Sure you could end up enjoying what the critics consider bad in the end but even in that case you know what you're getting into.

 

Bullshit. Building consumer trust and a good trusting fanbase/relationship between publisher, developer and consumer is how you make good money. Look at how CDPR do their business to understand. 

 

Except they AREN'T preventing you from making an informed decision. You, as a consumer, have zero obligation to purchase their product immediately. If you buy a game blindly and find out that's utter garbage after playing it, that's YOUR fault because you didn't research the game when it was released. If you really feel the need to read reviews then wait for those reviews. Wasting your money on a bad experience because you can't wait is not the developer's fault.

Am I defending Bethesda's decision? Yes, I am, because it is their right to do so. Do necessarily AGREE with said decision? No, I don't. But don't make false claims like this when you have the free will to WAIT a few days before making a purchase.

They are. I should be able to make an informed decision on day one. How the fuck can I research the game when there isn't any material to actually research? internet magic?

Bethesda also have a right to releasing glitchy games, selling horse armor for money and making bad games but that doesn't make it okay. A dick move is a dick move.

 

Rent it, download a demo (if one is available) or borrow from a friend who has the game. Nothing is saying you have to buy the game to play it.

-Renting is a dying business in many places and nonexistent in many more

 

-Demos are a rarity now a days

 

-''Borrow from a friend'' only works when the game is old.

Good for them. Maybe other game companies with start doing this as well.

 

Yes I'm serious, because the current video game review process/system/culture is really bad and needs to change. Look there is nothing wrong with the idea of a video game review, but there is a lot of things wrong with the whole idea of "free early review copies of games". People are complaining that website and youtubers don't get 1 or more free copies of a game that normal people have to pay $60+ for and not only that, but they get the game early. All this so they can post their opinion of a game they did not pay for, while they make money through ad revenue. That is so terrible, I feel so bad for those reviewers.

 

Seriously though, because the reviewer got the game for free their review is slanted which makes the review near worthless. How am I supposed to trust someone review if they don't have the same risks of buying a bad game? There are more problems with the current video game review process/system/culture that I don't feel like typing out, but this is a step in the right direction.

 

And no this is not anti-consumer, because the consumer will always have the ability to not pre-order/day one buy games. 

This makes no sense. First of all the insinuation that game reviewers are all getting rich for playing free games is delusional to say the least; and they get their copies early to get their reviews in early. That's how this works. Reviewers have to play a ton of games and review a ton of games and if put under monetary constraint that can stifle their job. It also helps with impartiality in a sense since there isn't an investment in play here. Are you against movie screenings for film critics?

 

Yes it is anti consumer. I should be able to make an educated decision on buying the game, on day one. Stifling my ability to do so hinders me as a buyer.

 

This thread makes my brain hurt. 

 

Let Bethesda do what it wants. If they put a lousy product on the market, they'll get called out for it. So many of us like to think that our fellow gamers are so much dumber than we are (a lousy sentiment, BTW - we are probably the lousiest community in regards to supporting one another out there).

 

But, they're not. The market is ultimately very savvy. Yes, we might get burned on a single bad experience, but we rarely keep handing our money over, again and again. If we think a bad deal is coming, we don't usually take it lying down.

 

I promise you that if Bethesda puts out a glitch-filled nightmare when Skyrim, or Dishonored 2, etc., is released, they'll pay dearly for it, and more so if they cleave to this policy. Maybe not immediately, but they will pay. No need to get yourself in a philosophical dander.

They did not pay for Skyrim. They did not pay for Oblivion. Or Fallout. 

 

If someone gets swept up in hype and pre-order/day one bought a bad game that is their own fault. The fact that they could not wait 10 days to 1 month to see if the game was good is their problem as a consumer.

 

That food critic's opinion is worthless if he didn't pay for that meal. A reviewer/critic job is to review/critique something as a consumer. If they don't pay for what they are reviewing/critiquing they are not consumer, they turn into something that is above a normal consumer which weakens the normal consumer trust and ability to connect to the reviewer/critic. Even a small bias caused by getting something free is still a bias and that bias will weakens a critical opinion.

 

None of those things are anti-consumer because the consumer does not have to buy any of them. The phrase anti-consumer get thrown around a lot nowadays (I blame people like TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling). When people say the phrase anti-consumer they are insinuating that the consumer has lost power or control over what they buy. None of those things you mentioned can cause the consumer to lose power or control over what they buy. If a consumer buys any of those things, that was their choice. No one forced them or left them no other choice but to buy those things so those things are not anti-consumer.

Wanting pre-release reviews is the opposite of being swept up in the hype. 

 

No it's not worthless. Reviews are not meant to be act as normal consumers that defeats the point of a critic. A critic is meant to help INFORM a regular consumer by being objective and fair with no bias towards the product they're reviewing while maintaining the interests of the consumer in mind. They're meant to be well versed and well informed on their line of work. Steam reviews and Metacritic user reviews are what happen when normal consumers critique.

 

This is not to say all user reviews are worthless of course but by nature of being critic you're not just any average Joe. Also this is a vast misunderstanding of the term anti consumer to begin with. Microtransactions do hinder the consumer. Hype culture does hinder the consumer. Cockblocking people trying to do their damn job and get the reviews in early is anti consumer. They don't have to put a literal gun on your head for it to be so.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

What's an "official" review? 

 

How do you go about ascertaining the "opinions of the many"? Metacritic user scores? Steam user reviews? All have been known to suffer from internet-fanboyism, metabombing, etc. 

 

How do you square this policy of going with the majority consensus with pre-ordering? How can there be a consensus before a game is launched?

 

Yes, by all means, make up your own mind. We all do. But reviews do help me avoid games which are going to be an obvious waste of my time.

 

I do not care for "reviewers" who just have a youtube channel. Call me old-fashioned but the only video reviewer whose opinion I've ever valued (still do) is that of Zero Punctuation, for the rest I'd just rather read a magazine.

 

With opinions of the many I just mean looking at a lot of opinions. Gamers on this forum, friends, a lot of different reviewers... If all kinds of different sources say the same thing that holds more value to me than one person shouting something., but I do not necessarily mean that I depend on one site grouping reviews together.

 

There can indeed not be much of a (real) consensus before a launch, hence the rest of my post which you didn't quote:

"Personally I only buy day one if there's an awesome collector's edition, a good pre-order deal, a series I have loved with every iteration, or all of the above. Reviews have nothing to do with it."

If I do not buy a game day one then yeah, I'll look at reviews and other kinds of opinion. With the games I pre-order, I'm set on playing the game anyway, either because I love the franchise (any new main Assassin's Creed, the new South Park), or because I'm very interested and I trust the devs (Horizon Zero Dawn). I pre-order because of physical goodies in a collector's edition or because of a pre-order sale, so I'm too early for reviews anyway. That, and my value of my own opinion over those of others, makes me say that I think reviewers not getting games weeks in advance is a good thing. Most games I won't buy within a month after release anyway, and I think it is fitting that fans get to play the game as soon as someone who just gets paid to talk about the game.

[StrickenBiged]

*Snip*

 

I'm glad somebody took the time to respond to all those. Couldn't have put it better myself, and I doubt I'd have been as polite in my rejoinders.

[voodoo_eyes]

I think everyone should buy a copy of Rogue Warrior to show their support. to Bethesda.

 

Jokes aside... most clickbatey title for a thread, I've seen in a while. Nowhere in the article is such a thing implied. On the contrary, they basically say they don't care, if you wait to purchase one of their games before reviews are out.

 

Still shame on Bethesda for self-boasting with Doom. The game was well-received, but it was the singleplayer  portion that was deemed great. The multiplayer was utter trash, which was also reported by many people. So, if you want to represent feedback, then do it right,

 

In regards to no reviews before launch, I don't care. I never buy a game on launch these days, much less pre-order a game as I don't have the need to immediately play something as soon as it comes out. I won't enjoy a game any less, if I play it a year or two after release, I'll have paid half the price though.

Oh, and 90% of the pre-order bonuses (which mostly consists of dlc), end up on the store a few months later. Note: Not trying to have a go at those who pre-order, People can do with their money whatever the hell they want, but don't kid yourselves thinking you'd get extra exclusive content, because you won't. Eventually it's available for everyone, because it means extra $ for the dev/pub.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

Reviewers are worthless so I don't see this affecting anything in the long run...

In fact, I don't recall the last time I read a review and agreed with it. It's basically "random-jackass" inserts "hype machine_01" for 30 minutes, plays/multitasks, and types up some generic tripe.

Think about it, when was the last time you read a review and learned about a game's multiplayer/connectivity or trophy attainability? I'd rather entrust the fine readers of psnprofiles.com for such things.

Might seem far fetched being on PSNP but trophies are inconsequential for 95% of the gaming community. Multiplayer and connectivity are hard to judge until people are actually playing online. What you want is a trophy guide not a review.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

Are you against movie screenings for film critics?

 

Yes it is anti consumer. I should be able to make an educated decision on buying the game, on day one. Stifling my ability to do so hinders me as a buyer.

 

This type of reasoning kind of bothers me. First off, movies and games work differently. When a game is out, it's out but a movie has only limited time in cinemas. Second, if I would ever be in the position to have a film released on a big scale, I would definitely not care for a screening just for film critics. A screening just for fans, however, would be awesome. How? A new Marvel fim could premiere at a comic-con. Tickets to an adaptation of a book could be given to people who bought the book.

 

If you want a game based on reviews, why is it so bad to wait a couple of days? Personally if I want to buy a game at launch, it happens regardless of reviews.

[StrickenBiged]

I do not care for "reviewers" who just have a youtube channel. Call me old-fashioned but the only video reviewer whose opinion I've ever valued (still do) is that of Zero Punctuation, for the rest I'd just rather read a magazine.

 

Maybe we were talking past each other. I had in mind written reviews but it seems you were thinking about video content?

 

As far as video reviews go, Angry Joe seems to put out good stuff. Entertaining, and with a very critical approach which I like. I don't always agree with all his conclusions but I think he is good at criticism and explains his reasons for each point. 

 

Generally though, I agree. I far prefer written reviews. If there's a game I'm on the fence about, I'll usually read a number of reviews, using Metacritic to find the most critical and the most positive, then going to my usual review sites to see what they said. 

 

 

There can indeed not be much of a (real) consensus before a launch, hence the rest of my post which you didn't quote:

"Personally I only buy day one if there's an awesome collector's edition, a good pre-order deal, a series I have loved with every iteration, or all of the above. Reviews have nothing to do with it."

If I do not buy a game day one then yeah, I'll look at reviews and other kinds of opinion. With the games I pre-order, I'm set on playing the game anyway, either because I love the franchise (any new main Assassin's Creed, the new South Park), or because I'm very interested and I trust the devs (Horizon Zero Dawn). I pre-order because of physical goodies in a collector's edition or because of a pre-order sale, so I'm too early for reviews anyway. That, and my value of my own opinion over those of others, makes me say that I think reviewers not getting games weeks in advance is a good thing. Most games I won't buy within a month after release anyway, and I think it is fitting that fans get to play the game as soon as someone who just gets paid to talk about the game.

 

I didn't quote that bit of your last post because (other than "a series I have loved", because the next one in the series could always be shit) they're valid reasons to pre-order which, like you said, have nothing to do with reviews.

 

I don't think you can say that reviewers "not getting games weeks in advance is a good thing" though. I think it's not. To write a thorough and informative review takes time. By reducing the time between review code and launch, publications and websites will be incentivised to rush their reviews in order post first and make the most in ad revenue from interested readers, which risks resulting in poorer quality and less informative reviews for the consumer. 

 

Not directed at you specifically:

 

It's up to each of us as consumers to decide how much value we place on reviews generally and specific sources thereafter. If you think a particular publication is too influenced by their relationship with a publisher then that's fine, stop reading their reviews.

 

There are many other sources which place a higher premium on their editorial independence available instead. So it's unfair to think that all reviewers are biased or corrupted by money just because you don't like one particular source.

[Lance_87]

They want my money? Well duh, i'm getting a free copy on my Steam library anyway.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

This type of reasoning kind of bothers me. First off, movies and games work differently. When a game is out, it's out but a movie has only limited time in cinemas. Second, if I would ever be in the position to have a film released on a big scale, I would definitely not care for a screening just for film critics. A screening just for fans, however, would be awesome. How? A new Marvel fim could premiere at a comic-con. Tickets to an adaptation of a book could be given to people who bought the book.

 

If you want a game based on reviews, why is it so bad to wait a couple of days? Personally if I want to buy a game at launch, it happens regardless of reviews.

Most movies are in theater long enough for everyone interested to see them. A review that's a month late tends to have very little value past affirming the critic's opinion and then it becomes more of an opinion piece than a relevant review. That and most reviewers *are* gamers and movie critics, movie goers. They like the games or movies you and me like and are fans of the franchises me and you are fans of. Making early screening for fans or w/e is nice and all but is pretty much entirely pointless to your average consumer. Reviewers get things early not for shits and giggles but because they kind of need to do their job efficiently and esp when it comes to video games which can take a lot of time to properly consume and evaluate.

 

Its just plain unnecessary and inconvenient. Its Bethesda trying to cash in on easily persuadable buyers who may have pre-ordered a game can be swayed by reviews. Its Bethesda ensuring there is no stopping the hype train until they've lined their pockets with cash. Sending early review copies is a sign of faith in your product. It allows people to tone down their hype, know what to expect, change their pre-orders etc with this you can't.

[Stargazer2600]

I do not care for "reviewers" who just have a youtube channel. Call me old-fashioned but the only video reviewer whose opinion I've ever valued (still do) is that of Zero Punctuation, for the rest I'd just rather read a magazine.

 

With opinions of the many I just mean looking at a lot of opinions. Gamers on this forum, friends, a lot of different reviewers... If all kinds of different sources say the same thing that holds more value to me than one person shouting something., but I do not necessarily mean that I depend on one site grouping reviews together.

 

There can indeed not be much of a (real) consensus before a launch, hence the rest of my post which you didn't quote:

"Personally I only buy day one if there's an awesome collector's edition, a good pre-order deal, a series I have loved with every iteration, or all of the above. Reviews have nothing to do with it."

If I do not buy a game day one then yeah, I'll look at reviews and other kinds of opinion. With the games I pre-order, I'm set on playing the game anyway, either because I love the franchise (any new main Assassin's Creed, the new South Park), or because I'm very interested and I trust the devs (Horizon Zero Dawn). I pre-order because of physical goodies in a collector's edition or because of a pre-order sale, so I'm too early for reviews anyway. That, and my value of my own opinion over those of others, makes me say that I think reviewers not getting games weeks in advance is a good thing. Most games I won't buy within a month after release anyway, and I think it is fitting that fans get to play the game as soon as someone who just gets paid to talk about the game.

i find that me and angry joe normally have the same tastes in games. Joe isnt afraid to say if a game sucks

[xxLuBuX]

i find that me and angry joe normally have the same tastes in games. Joe isnt afraid to say if a game sucks

lol sup star

aaaanyways I dont really care cuz I like bethesda games!

[Sofa King]

I don't think you can say that reviewers "not getting games weeks in advance is a good thing" though. I think it's not. To write a thorough and informative review takes time. By reducing the time between review code and launch, publications and websites will be incentivised to rush their reviews in order post first and make the most in ad revenue from interested readers, which risks resulting in poorer quality and less informative reviews for the consumer. 

 

 

Absolutely agree with this. How can you trust a review to be a complete assessment of the merits and/or faults of a game when the reviewer does a speed run just to finish the game and get their review published first? I'm not saying that will always be the case but it leaves the door open for less thorough reviews and more "played it for an hour, here's what I think" reviews.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Sofa King

[Stargazer2600]

Absolutely agree with this. How can you trust a review to be a complete assessment of the merits and/or faults of a game when the reviewer does a speed run just to finish the game and get their review published first? I'm not saying that will always be the case but it leaves the door open for less thorough reviews and more "played it for an hour, here's what I think" reviews.

you make a fair point. Theres a few games that reviwers have said are good that i hated and vice versa. 

[DaivRules]

People don't even bother to read factual reviews on their cars, where a review can provide invaluable information about a very expensive expenditure.

 

I can't say I have sympathy for people who want reviews for video games before they're available for purchase because they desperately want to throw their money at a developer. As far as I'm concerned *early* reviews are anti-consumer. Especially if they have any kind of MP component that will not mimic the test environment once everyone has access.

 

Responsible consumers should wait and not only read the first review that pops up.

[FlareXV]

Some publishers don't even send copies to reviewers now because they know that someone will break street date and upload gameplay to YouTube before the release. I wonder if traditional written reviews will die out in favour for video reviews?  Video reviews and gameplay seem more better suited for gamers in the long run. Also, these "In progress" reviews from the major video game media outlets are getting annoying and they too, will be the death of traditional reviews.

 

 

EDIT: I went to do some digging on YouTube and I was right, some people have already broken street date and are showing off gameplay. MKIceandFire (awesome YouTuber, subscribe for one of the best no commentary gamers around) is already showing Skyrim Special Edition on PS4.

 

Here's the link to the first part (be careful, there are some adverts in the video):

 

 

 

​

Edited October 26, 2016 by FlareXV

[Stargazer2600]

People don't even bother to read factual reviews on their cars, where a review can provide invaluable information about a very expensive expenditure.

 

I can't say I have sympathy for people who want reviews for video games before they're available for purchase because they desperately want to throw their money at a developer. As far as I'm concerned *early* reviews are anti-consumer. Especially if they have any kind of MP component that will not mimic the test environment once everyone has access.

 

Responsible consumers should wait and not only read the first review that pops up.

not to mention that games can and have changed. If a developer sends someone a early copy of a game, the game can change (sometimes in a big way) between the time they review it and you actually get it on its release

[MosesRockefeller]

I only preorder games that really interest me, and I very rarely get burnt since I have a good idea of what I'm getting. 

 

I haven't found a specific reviewer or reviews site that I like enough to trust with my purchasing decision. Angry/funny guy yelling about what's wrong with a game annoys me so I don't find that popular review technique to be helpful. But then I've never understood the "angry person mad about every tiny perceived issue" mindset. Anyway, I find that gameplay or Let's Play videos work better for me. I do still read occasional reviews but they are a small factor in my final decision. 

 

I can understand the purpose in holding back reviews for games that are intended to be big events that could be ruined by early reviews. I like how some movies and shows do that, to keep the experience from being too spoiled. But it's hard to make that argument about the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout. People know what to expect with those, and they aren't going to be spoiled by reading reviews early. 

[awf9495]

Lagging behind new releases lets you buy games cheaper, have better post patch experiences, and let's the consensus form their opinion if that is important to you. I pick up very few titles near release, but when I do decide to lack of reviews won't dissuade me.

 

As for reviewers having shorter windows, I would venture to guess that most reviewers fly through games as quickly as possible regardless of how much time they are given prior to release. As one person said there is financial incentive to be first, but there is also financial incentive to put out as much new content as possible.  This whole thing seems like a non-issue IMO - want reviews, wait a week or two (trust me, you'll be fine - there are lots of great games out there).

[yellowwindow7]

Hey Bethesda!

lightning don't strike the same place twice.

i'm pretty sure they got lucky with DOOM and the way it well received got nothing to do with how they handle the review copies.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

Maybe we were talking past each other. I had in mind written reviews but it seems you were thinking about video content?

 

As far as video reviews go, Angry Joe seems to put out good stuff. Entertaining, and with a very critical approach which I like. I don't always agree with all his conclusions but I think he is good at criticism and explains his reasons for each point. 

 

Generally though, I agree. I far prefer written reviews. If there's a game I'm on the fence about, I'll usually read a number of reviews, using Metacritic to find the most critical and the most positive, then going to my usual review sites to see what they said. 

 

 

 

I didn't quote that bit of your last post because (other than "a series I have loved", because the next one in the series could always be shit) they're valid reasons to pre-order which, like you said, have nothing to do with reviews.

 

I don't think you can say that reviewers "not getting games weeks in advance is a good thing" though. I think it's not. To write a thorough and informative review takes time. By reducing the time between review code and launch, publications and websites will be incentivised to rush their reviews in order post first and make the most in ad revenue from interested readers, which risks resulting in poorer quality and less informative reviews for the consumer.

 

I didn't think we were talking past each other... I indeed value written reviews (paper, not blogs) over youtube channels.

 

My point is not that reviews should be rushed. By all means, they can take their time. My main argument for not giving them the games weeks in advance is because I value the fan playing first over a reviewer getting to play with it before a fan does, just so a few others can be persuaded to buy the game.

 

P.S. I only mentioned that you did not quote part of my post because it already contained my answer to a question you asked me.

 

Most movies are in theater long enough for everyone interested to see them. A review that's a month late tends to have very little value past affirming the critic's opinion and then it becomes more of an opinion piece than a relevant review. That and most reviewers *are* gamers and movie critics, movie goers. They like the games or movies you and me like and are fans of the franchises me and you are fans of. Making early screening for fans or w/e is nice and all but is pretty much entirely pointless to your average consumer. Reviewers get things early not for shits and giggles but because they kind of need to do their job efficiently and esp when it comes to video games which can take a lot of time to properly consume and evaluate.

 

Its just plain unnecessary and inconvenient. Its Bethesda trying to cash in on easily persuadable buyers who may have pre-ordered a game can be swayed by reviews. Its Bethesda ensuring there is no stopping the hype train until they've lined their pockets with cash. Sending early review copies is a sign of faith in your product. It allows people to tone down their hype, know what to expect, change their pre-orders etc with this you can't.

 

Nevertheless, a movie is only in the cinema for a month, maybe two. IMAX fims tend to be only there a week or two and then go down to normal screens. If a game is out, you can get the exact same experience whether you buy it right away or a year later, but a movie almost never returns to the big screen after that first run of a month or two.

 

Bethesda actually explicitly stated that they invite people who want to have reviews before they purchase just wait until the reviews are there. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy day one, and most of the people that do will not care about the reviews. If I have already pre-ordered a game, then I actually ignore reviews until I've played, to shield myself from spoilers and so I can make up my own mind. Let's agree to disagree on this part though, it's obvious you value reviews way more than I do, at least when it comes to day one purchases, and my whole argument/opinion is held up by me not caring for them and just wanting to try myself - that's why I can say screw early reviews and just give the fans the game first, those are my priorities.

 

i find that me and angry joe normally have the same tastes in games. Joe isnt afraid to say if a game sucks

 

That's the second person recommending Angry Joe, I may have to try his reviews. About not being afraid to say something sucks though, the only video review I watch regularly is Zero Punctuation, which is all about the negative. I actually just watch those for the fun of it, if you know his M.O. then it's easy to see when he really hates a game and when he's just nitpicking because that's his style (he tends to lampshade that himself as well). I may not care for reviews that much and even less for video ones but Zero Punctuation has actually been the persuading argument for me once or twice. Point in case: I mainly bought Papers Please because of his review and indeed, I loved the game.