Bethesda wants your money before the reviews hit

[Bullstomp]

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.

No I don't want a trophy guide. Don't presume to speak on what I want.

95% don't care? Where do you get this number? There are close to 3mm users on this website!

I don't buy games for the most part day one, unless it is a game I know I will like. I wait to see what people on this site say. I want to know if there are bullshit or glitched trophies. I want to know if the servers are glitched or dead. And I want to know if true gamers (people who come to this website, not casuals) like the game before I buy it.

I do not respect the opinion of someone who gets paid to review games and types up minimalist garbage they offer. I truly believe they get kickbacks for their opinions.

Actually, I would respect them more if they posted their trophy profile. I'd wager the vast majority have an extremely low comp percentage, which means they aren't playing the whole game. What would that tell you about those reviews?

[DaivRules]

95% don't care? Where do you get this number? There are close to 3mm users on this website!

 

 

I think the actual trophy percentages on PSN via Vita/PS4 speak very well to 95% of gamers not caring about trophies.

[Stargazer2600]

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.

lightning has hit for them more than once. Doom isn't there only win

Oblivion

Skyrim

Morrowind

Fallout 3

Fallout 4

Just to name a few

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

95% don't care? Where do you get this number? There are close to 3mm users on this website!

 

I think the actual trophy percentages on PSN via Vita/PS4 speak very well to 95% of gamers not caring about trophies.

 

Yeah, I'm on this site and I don't really care that much about trophies. I use trophies to see how much I've done with the game that the dev wants me to experience but I have no problem with getting rid of a game if I only have 5/32 trophies after one playthrough.

 

Many people on the site are here just for the forums to talk about games, for events, because they do like the stats but aren't completionists... Granted 95% is just a random number, but I do believe that a huge majority of gamers does not care for the trophies/achievements they obtain. I don't think even half of the people registered on PSNP would identify themselves as trophy hunters.

[snacklepuss]

I don't know why everyone has to read reviews befor buying a game.

I never read them and buy games I might like. No other person can tell me if a game is good or bad. Even a game with bad reviews migth be fun for me.

If you really need to know the scores of a game just wait till the review gets published.

TRUE.....

I had left gaming alone for a few years, just paying the odd friends console or game here and there. Never used PSN for a long time.

Then all of a sudden, I was hooked back into what became my best and favourite game at one time, which incidentally came about by walking into a game store; buying a random game I never knew existed, which was a shooter for PS3. 

This in turn led me back into gaming and thus buying and testing different Capture Boxes/Cards/Software. Now Into a YT channel and Forums

Something I never had any thoughts of ever doing again at one time.

And now I`m on here posting...Ansd Now Trophies are again starting to be great to chase... Something I dismissed at one time.

 

Reviews actually do my head in and so I dont pay much attention to them.

To me, theyre a form of Mass Hysteria with people; fans; gamers taking sides. Not ALL just some.

 

Games are objective and relative to each person whereupon their success usually depended on the simplest of things-Devs Hard Work..

 

Then again, I still have a Commodore Amiga and Spectrum 48k and a console called Intellivision with game boxed as new, which was hard to get in Belfast due to circumstances at the times.

Intellivision

Edited October 26, 2016 by snacklepuss

[StrickenBiged]

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.

 

Why is it important that fans get to play it first?

 

Reviews aren't supposed to be pro- or anti- making a purchase. They're supposed to help the consumer come to an informed purchasing decision. 

 

You did help me realise something though - by making this policy, the only information available about a Bethesda game before release will be those marketing messages that they have been able to carefully manufacture and control.

 

They will be able to avoid any negative launch-day reviews from dissuading people from making a purchase. Any positive reviews (which will now arrive later) will only benefit their week two/three/etc sales. By the time negative reviews hit, it will have been too late for those that bought into the marketing. 

 

This could be the real reason for this new policy. 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

Why is it important that fans get to play it first?

 

Reviews aren't supposed to be pro- or anti- making a purchase. They're supposed to help the consumer come to an informed purchasing decision. 

 

You did help me realise something though - by making this policy, the only information available about a Bethesda game before release will be those marketing messages that they have been able to carefully manufacture and control.

 

They will be able to avoid any negative launch-day reviews from dissuading people from making a purchase. Any positive reviews (which will now arrive later) will only benefit their week two/three/etc sales. By the time negative reviews hit, it will have been too late for those that bought into the marketing. 

 

This could be the real reason for this new policy.

It's important the fans play it first because they actually care about the game. The reviewers care more about the paycheck - often at least, can't be picky and just review that series you love...

How long do you think it takes for negative reviews to hit? Don't tou think the internet will collectively scream murder if something is wrong?

My main view remains that the fans should be the first to play. Anyone who wants to wait for reviews should just not want to buy day one, in my eyes.

[stitchesnscars]

Lots of angst about reviews. I personally do use them to make decisions on whether or not to purchase a game the thing is though I use multiple sources rather than just 2-3. If 20 people notice the same terrible aspect about a game and you purchase it anyway and find the same fault and don't enjoy it, who do you have to blame? Using multiple reviewers as sources  also means that different reviewers will pay attention to other aspects of the same game that others may have missed that are important to you. i don't particularly like what Bethesda is doing but my response would just be to wait 2 weeks to a month after the game releases to make a decision.

 

Also I'll admit that I do pre-order games and I am a die hard physical copy person. Pre ordering a game (especially really early like 8-9 months in advance) allows me to almost "layaway" a game so that when the release date arrives the hit to the wallet is not as painful like almost every Oct-Nov. If i find out later that the game sucks I just cancel the pre-order and get my money back.

[StrickenBiged]

It's important the fans play it first because they actually care about the game. The reviewers care more about the paycheck - often at least, can't be picky and just review that series you love...

How long do you think it takes for negative reviews to hit? Don't tou think the internet will collectively scream murder if something is wrong?

My main view remains that the fans should be the first to play. Anyone who wants to wait for reviews should just not want to buy day one, in my eyes.

 

You have a very cynical view of game reviewers, IMO. By and large, they don't make great money for their service - it's not like it's a job for jaded, soulless corporate drones who don't know how to do anything else and are only in it for the money. My guess is that it's a love of games that keeps them going more than anything else, but I admit that's just speculation.

 

Yes, negative reviews have an impact on sales. And if it's a hotly anticipated game, the internet might start screaming. But if you're an excited day 1 purchaser or pre-orderer you're too late to benefit from either of those, especially under Bethesda's policy. 

[Undead Wolf]

It shocks me to see how many people support Bethesda's decision on this. Even if you personally don't find reviews helpful (maybe you should try looking for the good ones), there are many others out there that do. A review can inform you about the quality of a game before purchasing it. The statement Bethesda gave about "wanting everyone to play at the same time" is total bullshit. They are allowing certain youtubers and streamers early access to their games because it's easier to control the message. We already know about some of the shady deals these youtubers and streamers will take from publishers to spin the game in a certain light. They aren't allowed to say anything but positive things. Bethesda clearly don't have enough faith in their own games to allow actual game reviewers early access though, because they don't know what they are going to say. They can't control the message.

 

Eurogamer did an article on Bethesda's anti-consumer move today. I would absolutely recommend giving it a read. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-26-bethesdas-anti-consumer-review-policy-comes-as-no-surprise

And yes, they actually call it anti-consumer, because despite what some people in this thread choose to believe, that's exactly what it is.

 

I've only just gotten around to reading a lot of these responses, and I'm thankful there are people out there who see this for what it really is. If more publishers follow Bethesda's lead, this could potentially be extremely bad for everyone. If you don't agree with what Bethesda is doing, then I urge you to vote with your wallets. This is the only way these greedy publishers will listen. I certainly won't be supporting Bethesda after they've pulled this shit.

[DaivRules]

It shocks me to see how many people support Bethesda's decision on this. Even if you personally don't find reviews helpful (maybe you should try looking for the good ones), there are many others out there that do. A review can inform you about the quality of a game before purchasing it. The statement Bethesda gave about "wanting everyone to play at the same time" is total bullshit. They are allowing certain youtubers and streamers early access to their games because it's easier to control the message. We already know about some of the shady deals these youtubers and streamers will take from publishers to spin the game in a certain light. They aren't allowed to say anything but positive things. Bethesda clearly don't have enough faith in their own games to allow actual game reviewers early access though, because they don't know what they are going to say. They can't control the message.

 

Eurogamer did an article on Bethesda's anti-consumer move today. I would absolutely recommend giving it a read. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-26-bethesdas-anti-consumer-review-policy-comes-as-no-surprise

And yes, they actually call it anti-consumer, because despite what some people in this thread choose to believe, that's exactly what it is.

 

I've only just gotten around to reading a lot of these responses, and I'm thankful there are people out there who see this for what it really is. If more publishers follow Bethesda's lead, this could potentially be extremely bad for everyone. If you don't agree with what Bethesda is doing, then I urge you to vote with your wallets. This is the only way these greedy publishers will listen. I certainly won't be supporting Bethesda after they've pulled this shit.

 

Eurogamer... who stands to lose eyeballs because of this, instead puts up hate articles to make up missed revenue... what a surprise!

 

If all reviews disappeared off the internet tomorrow, would you just stop buying any new games?

 

You still haven't made a good case why these reviews need to be ready for day one purchasers. No one is arguing that all review should stop, just that reviewers should get access to the game at the same time as the day one purchasers so they have the same experience to write about. Also, no one is excusing leaking out their title to early access peeps.

 

The point was that *reviewers* won't get access before the general public. After release, they can review all they want. So the people who wait for reviews will have to wait a day or two. I really don't see the big deal.

[awf9495]

It shocks me to see how many people support Bethesda's decision on this. Even if you personally don't find reviews helpful (maybe you should try looking for the good ones), there are many others out there that do. A review can inform you about the quality of a game before purchasing it. The statement Bethesda gave about "wanting everyone to play at the same time" is total bullshit. They are allowing certain youtubers and streamers early access to their games because it's easier to control the message. We already know about some of the shady deals these youtubers and streamers will take from publishers to spin the game in a certain light. They aren't allowed to say anything but positive things. Bethesda clearly don't have enough faith in their own games to allow actual game reviewers early access though, because they don't know what they are going to say. They can't control the message.

 

Eurogamer did an article on Bethesda's anti-consumer move today. I would absolutely recommend giving it a read. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-26-bethesdas-anti-consumer-review-policy-comes-as-no-surprise

And yes, they actually call it anti-consumer, because despite what some people in this thread choose to believe, that's exactly what it is.

 

I've only just gotten around to reading a lot of these responses, and I'm thankful there are people out there who see this for what it really is. If more publishers follow Bethesda's lead, this could potentially be extremely bad for everyone. If you don't agree with what Bethesda is doing, then I urge you to vote with your wallets. This is the only way these greedy publishers will listen. I certainly won't be supporting Bethesda after they've pulled this shit.

 

I'm not supporting Bethesda's decision on this nor am I discounting the importance of reviews to others.  I just don't think having to wait a week or less after release date for reviews in order to make an informed purchasing decision is a major issue. I guess it doesn't give you that window to cancel a pre-order in case the reviews don't meet your expectations, but other than that, what exactly are the ramifications here?  You stated that if other publishers follow this lead it could be "extremely bad for everyone", but all it takes is a bit of patience to counteract such a policy.

[yellowwindow7]

lightning has hit for them more than once. Doom isn't there only win

Oblivion

Skyrim

Morrowind

Fallout 3

Fallout 4

Just to name a few

what i'm trying to point out is that they said DOOM got good reviews due to the way they handed the review copies to the reviewers, and now they're going to do the same with Dishonored 2 and Skyrim Remaster.

I believe even without the " hold on the reviews until the game is out " DOOM will gonna receive well, what if Dishonored 2 didn't score higher than the first game with that practice? what if Skyrim Remaster scored lower than the original last gen due to a bug that pushed people away from the game before been patched out, these game ranking reviews are just numbers you want the best review? play the game yourself.

[FlareXV]

If more publishers follow Bethesda's lead, this could potentially be extremely bad for everyone. If you don't agree with what Bethesda is doing, then I urge you to vote with your wallets. This is the only way these greedy publishers will listen. I certainly won't be supporting Bethesda after they've pulled this shit.

 

I'm sorry Wolf, but I don't see anything wrong in not sending review copies out in this day and age. Broken street date gameplay have made reviews irrelevant. It takes IGN 1 - 3 days for a review, it only takes MK and others a few days to show me the game and its technical flaws.

[Undead Wolf]

Eurogamer... who stands to lose eyeballs because of this, instead puts up hate articles to make up missed revenue... what a surprise!

 

If all reviews disappeared off the internet tomorrow, would you just stop buying any new games?

 

You still haven't made a good case why these reviews need to be ready for day one purchasers. No one is arguing that all review should stop, just that reviewers should get access to the game at the same time as the day one purchasers so they have the same experience to write about. Also, no one is excusing leaking out their title to early access peeps.

 

The point was that *reviewers* won't get access before the general public. After release, they can review all they want. So the people who wait for reviews will have to wait a day or two. I really don't see the big deal.

 

You know who else stands to lose from this? Anyone who's not Bethesda.

 

Unless I knew exactly what I was getting into, yes of course. At that point you'd just be talking a huge gamble. I certainly wouldn't be buying them at full price anyway.

 

Because a large percentage of sales comes from the first week or so a game is available for purchase. Again, I'm not taking about myself because I would always wait for a review anyway, but there are a large number of people out there who aren't as dialled in to how this industry works. They will see their favourite youtubers/streamers praise the game and they will base their purchase on that. They don't know Bethesda has sponsored them and told them to say positive things. Since there's no reviews out at that time, they don't know any better. It's all very shady if you ask me.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, not giving out early review copies will hinder the reviews themselves as sites would rush and try to get the reviews published as quickly as possible. It makes it harder to make an informed decision when the reviews themselves have been rushed.

 

I'm not supporting Bethesda's decision on this nor am I discounting the importance of reviews to others.  I just don't think having to wait a week or less after release date for reviews in order to make an informed purchasing decision is a major issue. I guess it doesn't give you that window to cancel a pre-order in case the reviews don't meet your expectations, but other than that, what exactly are the ramifications here?  You stated that if other publishers follow this lead it could be "extremely bad for everyone", but all it takes is a bit of patience to counteract such a policy.

 

Like I'm saying, it wouldn't be an issue to people like you or me because we can happily wait until more is known about the game. This move is more about preying on unsuspecting consumers who don't know any better. They're the kind of people who bought Aliens: Colonial Marines or No Man's Sky on day one because they had nice advertisements, and because they were lied to. They didn't know any better because reviews weren't allowed to be published until launch day, and by then, it was too late as they had already purchased the game. They will see the marketing material, and they will see the praise given in sponsored content, and then they will make their decision based on that. At least if reviews were around on day one, there would be unbiased opinions out there to inform people before that happened.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Undead Wolf

[B1rvine]

Just another typical thread where internet users disagree on everything like its life and death.

[starcrunch061]

I'm not supporting Bethesda's decision on this nor am I discounting the importance of reviews to others.  I just don't think having to wait a week or less after release date for reviews in order to make an informed purchasing decision is a major issue. I guess it doesn't give you that window to cancel a pre-order in case the reviews don't meet your expectations, but other than that, what exactly are the ramifications here?  You stated that if other publishers follow this lead it could be "extremely bad for everyone", but all it takes is a bit of patience to counteract such a policy.

That's exactly right. The fact is, people who are currently reading reviews to make (what they believe are the best, most informed) decisions aren't likely to be the ones who are pre-ordering without research. How does such a decision affect them at all?

I mean, do people think Bethesda will gain pre-orders from this? Do peopke think that, suddenly, otherwise-rational consumers will just bend to complete chaos? I've always been one to caution people about hype and the like, but I just do NOT get this.

This move is more about preying on unsuspecting consumers who don't know any better. They're the kind of people who bought Aliens: Colonial Marines or No Man's Sky on day one because they had nice advertisements, and because they were lied to.

With all due respect, if early reviews sole purpose is to protect the weak-minded consumer from himself, let them go the way of the dodo. People were shouting from the rafters about NMS long before it was released. Obviously, if a company lies about its product, it should be punished, but we're not talking tainted baby formula here. We're talking about a minority of people who apparently have enough money to spend it chasing after rainbows.

They did not pay for Skyrim.

What? Is this supposed to be a counter to my point? It makes no sense. Skyrim was released to reviewers early, and was given near universal acclaim by critics AND consumers. How in the world does this support anything else you had to say?

I would answer some of your other "points", but quite honestly, such rants tend to hurt my head.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

No I don't want a trophy guide. Don't presume to speak on what I want.

95% don't care? Where do you get this number? There are close to 3mm users on this website!

I don't buy games for the most part day one, unless it is a game I know I will like. I wait to see what people on this site say. I want to know if there are bullshit or glitched trophies. I want to know if the servers are glitched or dead. And I want to know if true gamers (people who come to this website, not casuals) like the game before I buy it.

I do not respect the opinion of someone who gets paid to review games and types up minimalist garbage they offer. I truly believe they get kickbacks for their opinions.

Actually, I would respect them more if they posted their trophy profile. I'd wager the vast majority have an extremely low comp percentage, which means they aren't playing the whole game. What would that tell you about those reviews?

There are 40m PS4s out there. As of 2011 the PS3 has 43.34 million units. 3 million is absolutely puny especially when a lot of members on here aren't that big on trophies or even have any games completed and are just here for the forums bit or to track their progress. One look at the PS4's completion percentages or the PS3's should tell you that indeed, most don't give a single flying fuck about trophies.

 

...So essentially, you want a trophy guide. I understand that trophies may be of importance to you as a trophy hunter but they do not inform on the quality of a game. They're almost wholly irrelevant to your average consumer and considering the fact that thoroughly vetting trophies takes time; that's a weak argument. Multiplayer activity and servers cannot be properly tested until put under actual strain by the players, which means reviews can't really evaluate that aspect of the game all too well. I'm going to skip the blatant elitism because fuck that noise.

 

I complete most of my games and have like 50% completion. Pretty flawed metric; unless you mean to assert that trophies = the validity of your review in which case lel.

 

Why is it important that fans get to play it first?

 

Reviews aren't supposed to be pro- or anti- making a purchase. They're supposed to help the consumer come to an informed purchasing decision. 

 

You did help me realise something though - by making this policy, the only information available about a Bethesda game before release will be those marketing messages that they have been able to carefully manufacture and control.

 

They will be able to avoid any negative launch-day reviews from dissuading people from making a purchase. Any positive reviews (which will now arrive later) will only benefit their week two/three/etc sales. By the time negative reviews hit, it will have been too late for those that bought into the marketing. 

 

This could be the real reason for this new policy. 

Here is the infuriating thing: Bethesda are perfectly willing to make use of the gaming MSM to manufacture hype through previews but they refuse to face the music. Its painfully obvious that this is nothing but a marketing move disguised with think PR speak to give it a positive spin. What surprises me is it's working.

Eurogamer... who stands to lose eyeballs because of this, instead puts up hate articles to make up missed revenue... what a surprise!

 

If all reviews disappeared off the internet tomorrow, would you just stop buying any new games?

 

You still haven't made a good case why these reviews need to be ready for day one purchasers. No one is arguing that all review should stop, just that reviewers should get access to the game at the same time as the day one purchasers so they have the same experience to write about. Also, no one is excusing leaking out their title to early access peeps.

 

The point was that *reviewers* won't get access before the general public. After release, they can review all they want. So the people who wait for reviews will have to wait a day or two. I really don't see the big deal.

What do you mean by that? game reviewers *do* have the same experience as you. If they play it earlier by a bit so they can actually put together a good review doesn't change the fact that they played the same game as you.

 

It's not a day or two. Mafia 3 proved that to be bullshit esp. if we're talking big games; you'll see reviews rushed by publications as well to try and get them out early as possible. There is a certain period of time after release where reviews are at their most useful, they tend to lose value afterwards.

 

What? Is this supposed to be a counter to my point? It makes no sense. Skyrim was released to reviewers early, and was given near universal acclaim by critics AND consumers. How in the world does this support anything else you had to say?

I would answer some of your other "points", but quite honestly, such rants tend to hurt my head.

You're saying the market sorts itself out. Bethesda have suffered no long term consequences for releasing flat out broken game after broken game and FYI Skyrim had a review embargo which is almost as bad as this.

Just another typical thread where internet users disagree on everything like its life and death.

How dare people discuss something on a discussion forum!

[Kishnabe]

I only Pre-Order Vita JPN games...since the games are ones I usually like. I don't get burned like the Triple AAA pre-orders.

 

Have not run into a pre-order, I regretted.

[Wavergray]

Look I really don't want to type out an essay about this, but all this people misunderstanding other people's point stuff is almost making me want to do so.

Now almost no one in this thread is saying reviews are bad, the main agreement I'm seeing is if pre-release reviews are worth anything at all.

I am saying they are worthless in almost all cases because of a few reasons.

1. The ingrained conflict of interest caused by the current pre-review process. Because the reviewers has to be in a good relationship with the developer to get the free pre-release review copy of the game the reviewer comes into the game with a certain amount of bias in favor of the game and developer. This bias will not stop the reviewer from critically reviewing the game, but the bias it will slant the review.

2. Nowadays most games have a day one patch. Because of these day one patches the game that is being pre-release reviewed could be radically different from the game with a day one patch. This is a huge hurdle that pre-release reviews have to overcome and lately they haven't done so very well.

3. Because of the day one patch problem the question of who pre-release reviews are for arises. If these reviews can't accurately tell people what the game they will be playing on release day is like then they don't really help people who buy games day one. So if they are not for day one buyer and all the other people who use reviews can wait for all the post release reviews who are these reviews for?

IMO these reviews only help the developers and reviewers. Since most of the reviews for AAA games are positively slanted all they do give the developer relatively free advertising and the reviewers get that sweet ad revenue money.

Because of these reasons and more a lot of people don't trust reviewer that do pre-release reviews based on a free early copy of a game. This is why when people like Angry Joe and Jim Sterling say a game is good or bad people trust their opinion because 8 times out of 10 they buy the games they review with their own money which put them on the same the level as the other consumers. This simple action causes people to trust in their opinion on games.

As for is this anti consumer or not. I say no it's not because nothing is forcing the consumer to do anything. The last time something was truly anti consumer in the game industry, was when Ubisoft and Capcom locked the true ending of Prince of Persia and Asura's Wrath behind DLC.

This is the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, but to say that Bethesda did something wrong for taking a step in the right direction towards ending the pre-order pre-release hype train BS seems weird to me.

Also stop assuming that normal game consumers are stupid. That has come up a lot in this thread and it's kind of ridiculous to assume people will keep being burned by hype trains over and over again. Eventually they will learn in they won't do it anymore.

Edited October 26, 2016 by soultaker655

[Undead Wolf]

With all due respect, if early reviews sole purpose is to protect the weak-minded consumer from himself, let them go the way of the dodo. People were shouting from the rafters about NMS long before it was released. Obviously, if a company lies about its product, it should be punished, but we're not talking tainted baby formula here. We're talking about a minority of people who apparently have enough money to spend it chasing after rainbows.

 

I'd argue that people who research games like we do are in the minority, not the other way around. It was obvious to people like us that NMS wasn't going to live up to the hype, hell, nothing ever does, but there are plenty of people who did fall for it and bought the game. The same goes for pretty much any overhyped game. Now yes, these people should know better, but I don't understand why you would be pleased about that happening when these greedy publishers are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Redgrave]

Even without reviews people are going to pre-order Bethesda or other AAA title games because it's Bethesda or EA or Ubisoft. The problem I see with this is other devs potentially following the same path which can lead to them being able to take peoples money without them actually knowing a game is good or not. You can say "Don't buy day one" but there are plenty of people that buy day one stuff because of hype, so waiting a week or so doesn't really matter that much. At least with a review that comes out a week before a game or whenever some people can at least have the chance to change their mind. Worst case scenario, a game can be a trashy buggy mess day one but since there were no reviews people bought it and the devs can just say "It happens" and get off the hook. Since it's been mentioned already, No Man's Sky is a good example of devs building up hype and then running off with the money. Would reviews have changed that? Probably not, but it would have at least saved disappointment for most people.

 

And another thing that I've noticed in the thread that's a peeve of mine. But for people that come in the thread and just say "Of course devs want your money lol" I feel like you didn't even read the whole title and the first post. I know it's not my thread but at least have the damn courtesy of reading the thread title or the first post, maybe even the first page at least.

[starcrunch061]

I'd argue that people who research games like we do are in the minority, not the other way around. It was obvious to people like us that NMS wasn't going to live up to the hype, hell, nothing ever does, but there are plenty of people who did fall for it and bought the game. The same goes for pretty much any overhyped game. Now yes, these people should know better, but I don't understand why you would be pleased about that happening when these greedy publishers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Why would I be sad that Bethesda makes money? I like Bethesda. I liked Skyrim. I want companies that make games I like to succeed. I then get to play more games by those companies.

You seem to be making a defense for the absolute lowest form of consumer. I don't get that. On the one hand, you say that peopke who research games are in the minority. I don't agree with that, but for now, let's take it as true. Why, then should Bethesda (or anyone else) give early review copies of games? What does it accomplish?

I want consumers to possess a certain amount of responsibilty and self-control. I believe they do, BTW. Thus, I see no need to protect them from themselves. If a person who hated Skyrim on the PS3 turns around and pre-buys it on the PS4, no amount of early access to info is going to save him, anyway.

[awf9495]

Why would I be sad that Bethesda makes money? I like Bethesda. I liked Skyrim. I want companies that make games I like to succeed. I then get to play more games by those companies.

You seem to be making a defense for the absolute lowest form of consumer. I don't get that. On the one hand, you say that peopke who research games are in the minority. I don't agree with that, but for now, let's take it as true. Why, then should Bethesda (or anyone else) give early review copies of games? What does it accomplish?

I want consumers to possess a certain amount of responsibilty and self-control. I believe they do, BTW. Thus, I see no need to protect them from themselves. If a person who hated Skyrim on the PS3 turns around and pre-buys it on the PS4, no amount of early access to info is going to save him, anyway.

 

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice......hey, anybody know if I can pre-order No Man's Sky 2 yet?

[vanillamoose]

After what occurred with No Man's Sky, I'm more hesitant than ever to purchase a $60+ game at launch if reviews are not out by then. Also considering that this is a remaster of a critically acclaimed title, I find it rather strange that Bethesda is not releasing early review copies.

Edited October 26, 2016 by vanillamoose