WeirdoStalkerJr
Member
Anything new regarding the game come out? Is it just frame rate issues, not gameplay or story?
Jim Sterling, Laura Kate Dale: Warning to Yooka-Laylee Pre-Orderers
- Thread starter Harlequin
- Start date
The Dutch Slayer
Member
I'm getting mine trough Kickstarter so there is no turning back now.
If by this you mean, at the end of the segment they say that, sure, but one literally calls it puke-a-laylee which is kind of embargo breaking, and LKD was doing her best impersonation of Banjo having an aneurysm.
And they harm the general reception of the game by being the sole most recent "information" anyone has. Watch it be a reference point for potential buyers, regardless if it's true or not cause they heard it from some one "reputable."
Literally don't know, which is what makes this so frustrating. Tell us or don't.
???
I haven't bought the game, hell I don't even care about it nor do I have plans on buying it as I did NOT like Banjo Kazooie et al., I am speaking strictly from the view of someone who walked into this thread to see what the news/warning was and found, well, nothing but vague non-information. Thats how meaningless this warning is, it tells me nothing more than "something may be wrong somewhere sometime".
Vacuous non-information, and it spins and feeds into confirmation bias for those looking for it. What makes it worse is that I cannot get a clear answer/information on this because everyone else is observing their embargo (and the source of the question provides no clarity) and have at best only said what is effectively a statement of "I disagree with the warning" but still everything is left vague. So I came into a thread looking to learn something and walked away having learned little of anything but, say, had I been someone tepid on the game... who knows, maybe this would have served as an easy hook for confirmation bias to get me off the fence.
Such information serves no purpose and may as well be filed under misinformation because it holds so little information as to be so meaningless and empty that I could draw any number of different conclusions from what I have learned from it.
KaoteK
Member
Spot on, I'm guessing a lot of the offended posters don't realise Jim backed the game himself (not sure about Laura) and stated multiple times he wants it to succeed.
Gravy Boat
Member
'Actively trying to damage the reputation of the game' by saying mostly good things about it?
Just to clarify, I meant "you" in the broad sense, as in "people", not you specifically.
Lordy that's a whole lot of nothing to write about someone who told you to maybe not preorder. He's saying, don't buy blindly. And you don't even care, you're not buying the game anyway! Hilarious!
My apologies. I misunderstood. 😯
I dislike vague information, it serves little purpose other than to attach itself to preconceived notions. I can make judgements for myself, I dont need vague non-information to feed a confirmation bias.
No worries, it happens. I should apologize too, because the language I used could easily be seen as being more direct than I intended. One of the limitations of text.
Robottiimu2000
Member
Dr. Black Jack
Member
A spoonful of sugar helps the trolling go down.
Seriously? Where are the "good things" reported in the OP? Because they were overshadowed by the instruction to "think twice about your pre-order" - a comment which oversteps any reasonable definition of a preview.
Jim zealots be as crazy as Zelda zealots.
I don't really care about FPS etc but this is a decent analogy.
That said, the comparison is only really apt if the car is a crowd funded indie project that isn't confirming to corporate standards and frame works.
The embargo drops early, doesn't it? This thread in its entirety will be irrelevant at that point anyway. No more vagueness needed then.
Three things you can take away from this:
1. Embargoes suck!
Certainly in the day and age where print media isn't really a factor anymore.
2. Embargoes suck!
Because if a single (few) outlet(s) break it, it can heavily skew perception.
3. Embargoes suck!
In case a product isn't good, the public should not be suckered into buying it by lack of proper information.
Whether JS/LKD are right, we will not know until there are more impressions or the game is out. Saying they are 'damaging the brand', is only true if they are wrong. Which we can't verify by now.
1. Embargoes suck!
Certainly in the day and age where print media isn't really a factor anymore.
2. Embargoes suck!
Because if a single (few) outlet(s) break it, it can heavily skew perception.
3. Embargoes suck!
In case a product isn't good, the public should not be suckered into buying it by lack of proper information.
Whether JS/LKD are right, we will not know until there are more impressions or the game is out. Saying they are 'damaging the brand', is only true if they are wrong. Which we can't verify by now.
Hostile_18
Banned
No one has anything to lose by not pre-ordering. If it turns out to be a false red flag then don't listen to them again when they say things like this, if there right then they have saved you some money.
This isn't really a big issue IMO.
This isn't really a big issue IMO.
Gravy Boat
Member
Actually listen to he podcast and not just a single quote from the OP. They say mostly good things about the game.
And don't call me a zealot when I'm being objective. You're the one going nuts over a single comment that you've only read out of context.
You also don't get to define what a preview is. Anyone can say whatever they want in a preview. There is no boundary to over step. Jim could tell people to cancel their pre orders, or encourage people to pre order more. It's his opinion, you don't get to decide what any critic can and can't say in their own work.
DieNgamers
Member
I listened to a good chunk of it and didn't hear anything positive at all.
Is it after the preorder remarks? Because they talk about something else after that.You know you're deep in Neogaf when posters make a game sound like sensitive child who's being bullied on the way to school.
Gravy Boat
Member
I listened to a good chunk of it and didn't hear anything positive at all.
They literally say the game is good and the story is interesting. The only negative thing I heard is with regards to performance. And if people are complaining that someone is trying to warn consumers about a game not running well then they are genuinely beyond help.
"How dare you advise that I wait and see how the performance is before commiting to purchasing it".
DieNgamers
Member
Are you sure they didn't mean another game? I skipped through the whole podcast again and missed it. I only heard their "meeeeeeh eeeeeeeeh" noises. Didn't sound too convincing
If the game is good and the story is interesting I don't think any backers will be cancelling their pre-order based on performance. He didn't say "wait for the reviews and see what you think" he said "think twice" about existing pre-orders. Advising someone against their pre-order implies "if you knew what I knew, but am not allowed to say, you wouldn't buy this game". It casts a huge amount of doubt over the product.
Gravy Boat
Member
Ok.
So what? Seriously. Why do you care so much about any of this? Do you not find it incredibly sad to get this defensive over someone saying something not-so-positive things about a bloody video game?
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Are you sure you're not confusing Jim's podcast with Gamexplain Q&A? I didn't hear anything positive in the podcast at all--got a time stamp?
Messofanego
Banned
Timestamp to where they say good things about Yooka Laylee?
gunstarhero
Member
Exactly what I was thinking. Hope it's not the case, but I've got a bad feeling about this... -_-
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
The poster isn't wrong.
Completely disagree. If you buy a game on day one because of a review, that's entirely your fault. Nobody is forcing you to pre-order or buy on release.
Publishers are under zero obligation to provide press with pre-releases.
Echelon079
Member
In today's world? Pretty much. And honestly, I just bought a switch two days ago with Zelda, and its about to either get returned or go on Craigslist, i am really not enjoying it. So I could agree on a 7.
Oh I agree on both terms. But in this case pre-release copies are given. Now if there is a considerable (pre) day one update, I can see an embargo being useful. Other than that reviewers should just be able to speak there mind. They are not tools of a publishers markting campaign.
And in worse cases, "influencers" are given earlier/no embargoes, because they are more likely to be favorable than critics.
But it's a two-way street. Publishers have a right to control the marketing for a game (when it goes live, not what is said about it) and so embargos are very important from that standpoint. It also avoids rushed reviews where press want to be the first and so throw something together.
If the press want free games, ahead of release to give them time to prepare a review for release as soon as a game goes live/just before a game goes live, then they have to play by the publishers rules - and rightfully so.
humansarehorses
Member
Except he's obviously talking about the developers.
Two-way street... Or double edged sword. If reviews are favorable everybody is happy to play ball with the embargo. And nobody bats an eye with some media giving a few nudges and winks that a game might be good.
In this case, JS/LKD decided the game was in such a state, the embargo hurts consumer interest, and as such "nodded and winked" (aggressively) that people perhaps should temper their expectations and be wary when buying the game without fully being on the up and up.
If they are right, we should have no issue with them breaking embargo, becuase they did so to protect us, the consumer. If they are wrong, the publisher has nothing but the embargo (read: themselves) to blame, that is holding positive impressions back.
Now, publisher are free to decide decide how, and to whom they release review codes. But I don't adhere to thought critics should always stick to these play rules. With this game they decided to not do that, knowing full and well that it might hurt there access to review copies in the future.
In the end everything will balance out.
LFMartins86
Member
The embargo ends one week before the game's release. People will have 7 whole days to read and view reviews to help them decide if they want the game at launch.
So? When issues are apparently severe enough to break embargo, why should people hold back? Because the pubs/devs want them to?
Not every retailer offerrs 'free' pre-orders (down payment) and let's not talk about digital storefronts (you gave us your money, too bad)
Well, that works under the assumption that each and every embargo-breaking information is basically the same as if the embargo wasn't there at all and furthermore, all new information is unambiguous. But neither is the case.
It creates a situation where
1) The information provided is far less detailed than if there was no embargo. That makes assessing its merit on its own much more difficult. How severe are the performance issues? On what platforms? Only in specific areas? You don't know any of this, which wouldn't be a problem post-embargo.
2) There are multiple people in this thread who don't really know what Jim and Laura are talking about, including John from Digital Foundry. Is that due to a different platform? A different area? Jim and Laura talking shit? Nobody knows. Because no one wants to completely break embargo. Just a little bit.
I totally agree embargos ending close to or at release day are shit and shouldn't exist. But the notion that embargos in general don't serve any purpose except for the publishers sake I can't really support. It prevents hot takes or uninformed early stuff, i.e., exactly the situation we have now. Maybe at the end of the day there are performance issues? I mean, we wouldn't have that problem if everybody agreed on that notion. But that isn't the case. And with a whole whopping week between the end of the embargo and Yooka-Laylee's release, I really don't see a problem wiht the embargo and keeping shut until it ends.
Some people with preorders may not be interested in reviews and have made their decision,this PSA may get some of them to check reviews when they may not have. Possibly saving them money
LFMartins86
Member
Most digital storefronts allow you to cancel your pre-order. I never understood the need to pre-order something that's very unlikely to sell out.
Well again... If there was no embargo, we wouldn't have any of these issues either.
But an easy solution for playtonic would be to open up previews/footage for the first 1 or 2 levels.
Now, I want to have said I'm not defending their stance on the game, but just their decision to break the embargo. I don't think they are out there to bully Playtonic. If they are wrong, it will bite them in the ass. I just find it a weird assumption that a publisher/dev should hold all the card until they decide not to.
I realize Playtonic took a risk by providing pre-release access so far in advance. That should be applauded.
Me neither. But apparently people do so. Either out of habit, or because they are incentified (discounts/content).
Toybox was a textureless playground to do physics puzzles in and test out moves.
We see more footage of the full game until recently.