Support NeoGAF

[dreamstation]

Companies should provide media previews under NDA before launch if the goal is ensuring everything is incorporated into day 1 reviews.

Was that the goal though? What other online only games have their servers turned on weeks before actual launch so reviewers can play and write their reviews prior to the masses getting their hands on it? I'd say basically zero.

 

[sainraja]

I find a major platform holder "asking" access media to hold off reviews to align with post-launch marketing to be highly unethical. Marathon being a good game doesn't change the questionable precedent set with reviewers. Companies should provide media previews under NDA before launch if the goal is ensuring everything is incorporated into day 1 reviews.

If the reason given for holding off reviews is reasonable, then what is wrong with it?

It's one thing to suggest people hold off on a full review, vs making that a requirement. No need to confuse the two. And tell me, how good is a review that does not cover or take into account the type of game being reviewed? That type of review is as good as useless. You want that?

 

[dreamstation]

It's one thing if they are suggesting, vs making it a requirement. No need to confuse the two.

I don't see how they can provide access prior to launch being an online only game. I'm pretty sure ranked and cryo were always going to unlock shortly post launch which means they can't review it prior to day one anyway and anyone reviewing an online only game prior to actually playing everything is doing the game and their credibility a huge disservice. We've seen discussion before about how setting a review score at launch where there can be issues or what have you VS later on once everything is fixed and the game is content complete. Can't really have it both ways. I'd say waiting a couple weeks for launch issues to be sorted and knowing all launch content is in the game for outlets to see is the right choice. Regardless of all that, reviews are coming in very favourably so I don't see there being any issue here except by people that were never interested in playing anyway and are just looking for more mud to sling.

 

[sainraja]

I don't see how they can provide access prior to launch being an online only game. I'm pretty sure ranked and cryo were always going to unlocked post launch which means they can't review it prior to day one anyway and anyone reviewing an online only game prior to actually playing everything is doing the game and their credibility a huge disservice.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. You've been on point.

 

[LyricalShrike]

Was that the goal though? What other online only games have their servers turned on weeks before actual launch so reviewers can play and write their reviews prior to the masses getting their hands on it? I'd say basically zero.

Don't most major games offer media previews using accounts at different levels. Servers would have been up in some form for weeks/months prior to launch for testing/friends family beta.

If the reason given for holding off reviews is reasonable, then what is wrong with it?

It's one thing if they are suggesting, vs making it a requirement. No need to confuse the two.

Access media depends on maintaining a relationship with publishers and platform holders. Does an outlet risk it's access to future games by not acquiescing to a request from one of gamings biggest companies? The request creates concerns of coercion even if made in good faith due to the power dynamics involved.

 

[sainraja]

Don't most major games offer media previews using accounts at different levels. Servers would have been up in some form for weeks/months prior to launch for testing/friends family beta.



Access media depends on maintaining a relationship with publishers and platform holders. Does an outlet risk it's access to future games by not acquiescing to a request from one of gamings biggest companies? The request creates concerns of coercion even if made in good faith due to the power dynamics involved.

If a news outlet feels strongly about that, they can simply spend their own money to buy and review the game and take advantage of any alphas/betas made available. Sony/Bungie can't stop that.

 

[LyricalShrike]

If a news outlet feels strongly about that, they can simply spend their own money to buy and review the game and take advantage of any alphas/betas made available. Sony/Bungie can't stop that.

I fully agree across all fronts but that's a different topic. Access media in any form needs to be disclosed as advertisements and include a disclosure of any ad buys or other financial benefits received prior to the review. Influencers should have any videos or reels involving free gifts watermarked as the ads they are.

We live in the real world though where any games journalist with integrity would lose out to the next eager hopeful willing to play ball with platform holders. Hence the ethical questions raised by Sony making such a request when the game is already launched. Does a major outlet make an ethical stand with marathon if it could possibly result in less media access to wolverine later this year?

 

[sainraja]

I fully agree across all fronts but that's a different topic. Access media in any form needs to be disclosed as advertisements and include a disclosure of any ad buys or other financial benefits received prior to the review. Influencers should have any videos or reels involving free gifts watermarked as the ads they are.

We live in the real world though where any games journalist with integrity would lose out to the next eager hopeful willing to play ball with platform holders. Hence the ethical questions raised by Sony making such a request when the game is already launched. Does a major outlet make an ethical stand with marathon if it could possibly result in less media access to wolverine later this year?

Then all the more reason for the public to expect better from these review outlets. Why take any of them seriously when they are looking for "free" review copies to do their jobs? Any type of free access is surely going to influence someone in some way. Simply accepting free previews/access compromises them.

Look, I get it, but reviewers need to try out marathon for what it offers as a whole vs what it offers on launch day given the type of game it is. These review outlets aren't doing their customer base any favors by giving "first impressions" and passing that off as a full review.

Perhaps GaaS games should be reviewed differently. They can change their format and set the right expectations. Let people know when "initial impressions" will be posted, and then announce the date when they plan on publishing their full in-depth review.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

I find a major platform holder "asking" access media to hold off reviews to align with post-launch marketing to be highly unethical. Marathon being a good game doesn't change the questionable precedent set with reviewers. Companies should provide media previews under NDA before launch if the goal is ensuring everything is incorporated into day 1 reviews.

How?!? Its not unethical, they weren't required to delay, some did post reviews before Cryo. But to see how the game cycle navigates you had to wait. Its a live service game. There has to be progression by players to get to the point, just like Destiny raids, this isnt new.

 

[LyricalShrike]

How?!? Its not unethical, they weren't required to delay, some did post reviews before Cryo. But to see how the game cycle navigates you had to wait. Its a live service game. There has to be progression by players to get to the point, just like Destiny raids, this isnt new.

Spend less time looking for reaction images and more time on your letters and you'll see that I explained myself.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Spend less time looking for reaction images and more time on your letters and you'll see that I explained myself.

Asking servers to go live for media access for events that take time and are based on a live game aren't the same thing. You don't understand the context which you are quoting as a solution.