Support NeoGAF

[_Ryo_]

Saying that extremely low scores should be reserved for broken games in this instance is non-sense. To reasonably play the game and to partake in all of its activities you either have to spend an unreasonable amount of time for very little gain, or pay a significant fee to progress certain things, ontop of a $60 purchase fee for the base game.

A full priced AAA game that relies on a Free-To-Play/Pay-To-Win mechanics for the player to progress in anything apart from complete, non gameplay affecting cosmetics is 100% in my opinion, a broken game.

 

[hyp]

expose these crooks!

 

[ron_bato]

Maybe I’m just viewing this from a different perspective.

I get that big publishers are generally assholes. But developers livelihoods tend to depend on this shit. Like, bad review score in this day and age can literally affect developers lives.

So it seems unfair to me, that a reviewer can so flippantly throw a 3/10 at a quality game that cost a shitload to make and a lot of people sacrificed a lot to get out the door because of the shitty decisions of the publisher.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying the reviewers disdain for microtransactions shouldn’t affect the score. I’m simply saying that to me, the 3/10 seems a little extreme. That’s all.

The review score is extreme because the way microtransactions are handled in this game are extreme. Different reviewers have different perspectives of the way this is handled, this reviewer puts a large overall value in the enjoyment of the career mode and other modes where VC is pushed, which progress is mind numbingly slowed to a horrible pace due to their need to push microtransactions. It's why I never bother with the mode because of how un-fun they have made it, due to the grind that you have to do to even get good and compete online.

An alternative way to handle this was IGN's coverage, where they specifically call out microtransactions as being pay to win and a huge step back:

Those are all steps forward, but NBA 2K18 has also taken a significant step back by bringing microtransactions to a place that feels uncomfortable. They were around last year, but now you’re forced to use virtual currency to buy everything from a tattoo to a T-shirt, as well as increasing your character’s stats. You can earn this currency by playing – very slowly – but if you buy the $150 version of NBA 2K18 you can get a big boost with the currency that comes with it. You’ll see plenty of those artificially high-rated players around, and it feels like we’re being steered toward spending money to avoid an insane amount of hours spent grinding for points.

This haves and have-nots problem is magnified because, again, individual players on the court play much more closely to their strengths and weaknesses than before. So when you start out, your 60-rated player is pretty much bad across the board. The people who paid money and have better skills are still not great at everything, but no one is going to want to play with your 60 because you’re now even more of a liability. It just feels really perplexing to make a competitive online mode so focused on character stats, because that means getting up to speed means either paying out money or grinding for hours to make yourself viable. Most competitive first-person shooters hide cosmetics or at worst maps behind a paywall rather than more powerful guns because that would throw off the balance, and this is no different. It’s a dangerous slide into pay-to-win territory.

They gave it an 8.4 out of 10. Which if you are only looking at the score and didn't read the text, you'd think there was nothing wrong with it. The difference between IGN's review, and the 6th axis' review is that the IGN review placed a premium on the on court product, whereas the 6th axis review takes a look at other modes affected by VC (the story mode, the neighborhood, pro-am, park, MyTeam) and sees the unfair nature as to which microtransactions are handled at the expense of the consumer.

Both ways of handling the review score are fine with me. The 3 out of 10 is a legitimate score because of the way they designed the game's overall pay to win structure to monetize their consumers at the expense of their time, and their enjoyment of the game.

 

[Dead End Irony]

These 2K dudes released a game that takes your money and deletes the shit you paid for. A 3/10 is almost too high. It's broken. Period.

 

[watdaeff4]

First, let's look at what 2K did:

This is normal. Any publisher/responsible PR firm calls an outlet if they score a game significantly worse compared to other outlets or what their predictions said. It's their job to get the game as good a score as possible and do everything in their power to get to that goal.

It's the editors' jobs to ignore these efforts. Either you were confident in your score and your argument for it and keep it or you got something wrong and are forced to issue a correction that alters your opinion on the game.

What you absolutely, categorially cannot do is take away or change the score because a publisher asks you to. It doesn't matter what they say, what they plan for the future or whatever. They can't have any influence on your scores or reviews or opinions. It's normal that there is contact and you talk with a publisher, but the second you actually cave in to their demands you make yourself a mere tool of their marketing. And I'm afraid it looks like that's seemingly what happened here. Even if you put the same score back at some later point you showed that you aren't fully indendent from publishers or PR, which is the worst possible look for any editorial outlet.

This message will get buried in all the "Fuck 2K" posts, but it's the big takeaway point.

Whoever from TSA decided to take the score down fucked up royally due to what you mentioned. What you actually left unsaid is that (and all due respect to the poster here who was the reviewer as it wasn't his personal decision to remove the score).....
I can't fully trust any review from TSA now as it shows their editorial board can be influenced by the publishers.

Oh.......and Fuck 2K

 

[Justified]

I’m not saying the microtransactions aren’t bad. I’m also not saying they don’t affect the game. I’m saying I believe 3/10 is over the top. To me, 3/10 suggests are broken or really poor game which this (by the reviewers own admission) isn’t.

A 5/10 or 6/10 to me, would be a more accurate score that balances the reviewers hate for VC with the quality of the game itself.

No its broken because the game is deleting people's MyPlayer, and erasing the VC they bought with real money.

What would you call that?

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

The review score is extreme because the way microtransactions are handled in this game are extreme. Different reviewers have different perspectives of the way this is handled, this reviewer puts a large overall value in the enjoyment of the career mode and other modes where VC is pushed, which progress is mind numbingly slowed to a horrible pace due to their need to push microtransactions. It's why I never bother with the mode because of how un-fun they have made it, due to the grind that you have to do to even get good and compete online.

An alternative way to handle this was IGN's coverage, where they specifically call out microtransactions as being pay to win and a huge step back:



They gave it an 8.4 out of 10. Which if you are only looking at the score and didn't read the text, you'd think there was nothing wrong with it. The difference between IGN's review, and the 6th axis' review is that the IGN review placed a premium on the on court product, whereas the 6th axis review takes a look at other modes affected by VC (the story mode, the neighborhood, pro-am, park, MyTeam) and sees the unfair nature as to which microtransactions are handled at the expense of the consumer.

Both ways of handling the review score are fine with me. The 3 out of 10 is a legitimate score because of the way they designed the game's overall pay to win structure to monetize their consumers at the expense of their time, and their enjoyment of the game.

Fair enough I guess. Thanks for at least being less abrasive.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Anyone that thinks 3/10 is extreme needs to come and ask everyone in the 2K18 thread. I am sure most of the players will say that, even if they might personally score it higher, they can understand a 3/10 score.

The most egregious microtransactions I have seen in a $60 game, having to spend a shit ton of VC on your player to find out what he maxes out at because the game doesn't actually tell you what you are spending VC on, people having their players deleted along with the extra VC that they paid for, the list goes on.

Game is straight up broken in places, deceitful in others, all with the purpose of forcing players to spend extra money on VC.

EDIT: I forgot about the disappearing VC bug, people are earning VC in games only for it to disappear when you get back to the game hub.

 

[Hesh]

Every single one lol

Not true. I don't condone 2K's actions but I can play the game without issue in MyGM. Abilities are locked behind levels, which you can purchase yourself or unlock naturally via playing games, and these abilities are in regards to player chemistry, fatigue, contract negotiations, Owner/Opposing GM trust (when working out trades and whatnot), power-ups of sort that let you pep talk your players and change their current mood if it gets toxic, and in-arena power-ups regarding merchandise and whatnot that affect team profits.

As someone that doesn't play online or MyCareer, I never have trouble with VC when I feel like upgrading my GM or franchise. I sympathize with people that play online/MyCareer exclusively, though, as it's like they're stuck playing a F2P game on top of the $60 price while I get to play a traditional basketball sim for $60. You can enjoy this game and not spend a dime on VC, which is something that gets lost among the outrage, and gets muddier when people aren't being truthful about criticisms.

 

[Violence Jack]

I’m not saying the microtransactions aren’t bad. I’m also not saying they don’t affect the game. I’m saying I believe 3/10 is over the top. To me, 3/10 suggests are broken or really poor game which this (by the reviewers own admission) isn’t.

A 5/10 or 6/10 to me, would be a more accurate score that balances the reviewers hate for VC with the quality of the game itself.

A 5 or 6/10 would probably be justified if the game were like $30. The fact that it's a full priced game with player progression, customization that you can't even preview, and game modes stuck behind an excessive amount of grinding or spending real money is fucking ridiculous. It might as well be broken for fans of the MyPlayer mode.

 

[Syriel]

Fucking disgusting.

I'm sure they threatened to not send review copies/invites to press events and basically cut them off from the publisher if they didn't.

If you are a big online gaming site do you want to preview or get a early review code Red Dead Redemption 2 and GTA VI or not?

Probably threatened to blacklist them with no more review copies.

Yup. Unfortunately. A lot of people's livelihood is at stake here.

For a professional review site, the concept of a "blacklist" is laughable, and a minor inconvenience at worst. Game companies may not invite you specifically (in an attempt at spite), but there are always freelancers. Which is why PR usually doesn't even bother to try.

There is no effective way to blacklist any professional outlet. They'll just pay a freelancer.

So unless someone involves claims that a blacklist was threatened, it is pretty silly to assume such a thing.

I was young, stupid and got pressured into not running a story by Bioware/EA PR back in 2009 after we reached out to them for a statement. These guys really know how to dig in and bully.

I wish there was more of a support network for folks like TSA who do this maybe not as their primary career.

I'm going to step in real quick before bed.

So at TSA we're all just guys who do the video game stuff outside our day jobs. While some of us have some media training the site doesn't generate the kind of cash that allows us to do this full time. We're no IGN, Kotaku or Eurogamer.

That said I will support my editor's decision precisely because no one here including myself knows what has been said between the parties involved.

Have blacklists been threatened? I don't know.

Will the review score change? I don't know. Though my personal position is if the game doesn't ease up on the VC then it won't.

Honestly while the aim was to help highlight the issue, like Kotaku and Jim Sterling have, I don't think anyone at TSA thought it would get this much attention.

Just like you we're waiting on a statement from 2K. Just like you we don't know what will be said or what changes will be announced, if any. Right now I can't shed anymore light on the situation.

The bolded bits here are the real problem.

TSA (and other similar sites) are putting themselves forth as professional outlets.

They're included on MC and OC with other professional outlets.

Thus, they're held to the same standards as a professional outlets.

A site cannot be both professional and hobbyist.

Barring a case of libel, an editor should always stand by his or her writer. This is bad and is driven by TSA's desire to maintain a good working relationship with 2K.

Small sites like these live on game companies sending free copies/codes to them.

The issues of this being a "protest score" is a quality of the publication issue, and if it is defended in the writing, should not matter. If it was a principled "I hate all games participating in microtransactions" stance, that would be different.

If an outlet cannot make enough income to maintain editorial independence, should it be treated as a professional outlet? Or should it be given the same weight as a random girl/guy on YouTube?

A site can be staffed by people who do it part time, and still be professional. The key is maintaining that independence by being self-sustaining.

First, let's look at what 2K did:

This is normal. Any publisher/responsible PR firm calls an outlet if they score a game significantly worse compared to other outlets or what their predictions said. It's their job to get the game as good a score as possible and do everything in their power to get to that goal.

It's the editors' jobs to ignore these efforts. Either you were confident in your score and your argument for it and keep it or you got something wrong and are forced to issue a correction that alters your opinion on the game.

What you absolutely, categorially cannot do is take away or change the score because a publisher asks you to. It doesn't matter what they say, what they plan for the future or whatever. They can't have any influence on your scores or reviews or opinions. It's normal that there is contact and you talk with a publisher, but the second you actually cave in to their demands you make yourself a mere tool of their marketing. And I'm afraid it looks like that's seemingly what happened here. Even if you put the same score back at some later point you showed that you aren't fully indendent from publishers or PR, which is the worst possible look for any editorial outlet.

No lies detected here.

We don't even know what 2K PR said other than "Hey, let's chat about that review score."

I'd point part of the blame at the six axis editor, he or she has agreed to pull down the review when they could just leave it up and tell 2k to go home.

I would put all the blame on TSA editor here.

Either the review was not fit for publication, and it should not have been posted, or the review was accurate, and it should have never been pulled.

Professional editors don't care if a review is positive or negative. They care that the review text and the score align, and that every statement made in the review body is true.

 

[U2NUMB]

Not to mention the game is still a chore to load and play certain modes. I have switched over to NBA Live.. the career mode is flat out better...

My last 2K game until they remove the VC system... good on TSA for correctly reflecting the choice made by the dev and how it changes / hurts the game.

 

[megalowho]

2K's VC greed should be punished by reviewers, specifically the way it impacts gameplay, gates progression, and particularly because it keeps getting worse. Twitter is yelling about it plenty and they won't say shit there either. I feel like a sucker for buying the game this year more than ever, let alone all the whales out there that 2K has finely tuned their product to reel in.

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

The main culprit here is not 2k, because they will always try to maximize profits and be jerks . The main culprit in this situation is TSA who backed down. If people back down, 2k will never change.

That pisses me off. If you put out a review , stick to it. Fuck 2k and their opinions . If gaming news can't do that, we are doomed

 

[Walt_Clyde]

Die hard bball fan and avid 2k player. Am done witht the franchise.

 

[The Maverick]

I've played 2K since dreamcast. Since AI on the cover. Ben Wallace on the cover. Chris Paul. KG. Shaq. Kobe. And more. I returned the game today due to VC.

2K can fuck off for the foreseeable future.

 

[paragonpro]

Between this and shadow of war i hate the direction tripple a games are heading in

 

[King Tubby]

The VC grind is more ridiculous than ever now, although it's mostly confined to the MyCareer/MyPlayer stuff. You can play the franchise modes and other stuff without really having to worry about VC...but then again, who knows what direction they'll take it in the future. They already introduced a story for the MyGM mode this year.

3/10 isn't entirely unwarranted I feel.

 

[Phreakuency]

I've played 2K since dreamcast. Since AI on the cover. Ben Wallace on the cover. Chris Paul. KG. Shaq. Kobe. And more. I returned the game today due to VC.

2K can fuck off for the foreseeable future.

Pretty much the same here.

And yes they can fuck off.

 

[The Maverick]

Pretty much the same here.

And yes they can fuck off.

The one "exploit" (that still took hours to even get $8 worth of VC) was patched almost immediately, yet players have lost whole characters and bugs exist with total silence. You can't even see the attributes for where your VC is being spent.

Yeah, this review score is deserved. They only look more scummy with this situation.

 

[shpankey]

Appalling. Definitely scratched off my short list now, for what little that’s worth.

 

[Hristi]

This is why we need competition. 2k is doing this because they can get away with it. Greedy fucks.

 

[watdaeff4]

TSA (and other similar sites) are putting themselves forth as professional outlets.

They're included on MC and OC with other professional outlets.

Thus, they're held to the same standards as a professional outlets.

A site cannot be both professional and hobbyist.

If an outlet cannot make enough income to maintain editorial independence, should it be treated as a professional outlet? Or should it be given the same weight as a random girl/guy on YouTube?

A site can be staffed by people who do it part time, and still be professional. The key is maintaining that independence by being self sustaining

To start with I also have concerns now with TSA as I mentioned a few posts above yours.....

I am not for sure I agree with your notion that a review site is either professional or hobbyist based on your aspect that they have people doing this outside their primary jobs. In fact that is a very poor criteria to use. Which makes it more odd that you go on to state that they could be staffed by part-timers.

Furthermore what "standards" are there at all in place that you want them held accountable to?

Now your points regarding independence is another matter, I don't disagree with. But on that note it has long been suspected that publishers have an influence from time to time even on the big "professional" outlets

We don't even know what 2K PR said other than "Hey, let's chat about that review score."

Yeah, we don't know......but spidey-sense tells us that if that's all that was said, the score would not have come down. To think there wasn't some type of strong-arm action going on is a bit naive IMO. The fact they are blocking twitter accounts that comment on VC is another huge sign

I would put all the blame on TSA editor here.

For pulling the score, but 2K isn't an innocent here.

Either the review was not fit for publication, and it should not have been posted, or the review was accurate, and it should have never been reviewed.

What to you mean by "the review was accurate and it should have never been reviewed"?

 

[IISANDERII]

There was an NBA2K game on PS+ some time ago. I was really looking forward to it but pretty soon after booting it up I was seriously turned off by being absolutely pummelled with sales pitches, advertisements and comm for the excessive microtransaction bullshit.

The review makes this update sound even worse. Fuck these practices and fuck this blackmail shit. I can also imagine the publisher withholding bonuses, shortening contracts etc to the developers who made the game for the low score.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

Another day, another gaming “controversy”...

 

[theWB27]

Another day, another gaming “controversy”...

So vague...

 

[BadAss2961]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

I think people complain because the shortcut is there for people to take and for 2K to capitalize on. If the currency system were removed but the grind remained the same, there would probably be a lot less outrage.

Review pressure is shitty, but that score is laughable for how good NBA 2K games are.

 

[LegitMcfalls]

This all seems shady and terrible from both parties. The big corporation bullying the little publication and said publication not standing up for themselves and their reviewer.

If I'm TSA im saying to the 2k pr team, "this is our review and if you try to pressure us into changing the score we will post your threats on our site and cause the a pr nightmare for your brand".

And 2k should have handled this more publicly. "We see the review from tsa and we would like to thank the reviewer for taking time to play 2k18, however at this moment we disagree with the score. We have been in contact with tsa to discuss our plans for future updates and patches in 2k18. Hopefully tsa will consider updating their review and score at a later date to reflect current state of 2k18 to the tsa readers".

Spoiler

im looking for work so hire me for all your shitty pr situations

 

[Mr. Mister]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

I think people complain because the shortcut is there for people to take and for 2K to capitalize on. If the currency system were removed but the grind remained the same, there would probably be a lot less outrage.

Review pressure is shitty, but that score is laughable for how good NBA 2K games are.

I think it’s great that you genuinely enjoy the game and the grind.

That said when people working on the game are spending time trying to design abusive systems to extract money from you on a 60 dollar product it rubs me the wrong way.

There’s undoubtedly a fun game here that could have been even better if more time had been spent on the core as opposed to cash extracting systems that prey upon the worst parts of our animal brains.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

I think people complain because the shortcut is there for people to take and for 2K to capitalize on. If the currency system were removed but the grind remained the same, there would probably be a lot less outrage.

Review pressure is shitty, but that score is laughable for how good NBA 2K games are.

People care because the grind is purposely made longer and and more tedious in an effort to entice you to purchase VC. It gets a little worst each time and I don’t see why any gamer would bother to defend it or try to justify it on behalf of a publisher.

 

[night814]

This is really shitty. 2K look like massive dicks. I like that they are drawing attention to a bad review though.

 

[theWB27]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

I think people complain because the shortcut is there for people to take and for 2K to capitalize on. If the currency system were removed but the grind remained the same, there would probably be a lot less outrage.

Review pressure is shitty, but that score is laughable for how good NBA 2K games are.

In destiny you level up from simply playing while also attaining different weapons with different perks that fit your style. Not to mention getting extra power for your character class is a different point system than say leveling the light level of your favorite weapon.

I could be very wrong here, but allot of RPGs separate something like xp from the currency it would take to attain new armor. Like the Witcher.

But the problem in 2k is VC is the only thing that can get you that new armband or move... Or should you spend it on making your player better? That is what makes this system so bad. You don't level up in 2k from simply playing... So it's pretty far from being an rpg in any way. Simply making an xp system to spend on attributes would make having to buy moves and gear with vc a little more tolerable.

 

[King Tubby]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

It's worse in 2k18 than ever before.

 

[Phreakuency]

There was an NBA2K game on PS+ some time ago. I was really looking forward to it but pretty soon after booting it up I was seriously turned off by being absolutely pummelled with sales pitches, advertisements and comm for the excessive microtransaction bullshit.

The review makes this update sound even worse. Fuck these practices and fuck this blackmail shit. I can also imagine the publisher withholding bonuses, shortening contracts etc to the developers who made the game for the low score.

I bought 17 and felt the same.

The intro screen was always an ad for VC 'sales' but it got worse because during actual games, a pop up ad at the bottom of the screen would appear to advise bullshit such as '24hrs left for VC sale' and such.

Just like most people have said, bullshit that you expect from a fucking free to play game not a full priced (and in some 'special editions 2x full price) game.

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

I can't believe the game is sitting at a 88 meta, good on the reviewer for taking a stand against the bullshit.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

I think people complain because the shortcut is there for people to take and for 2K to capitalize on. If the currency system were removed but the grind remained the same, there would probably be a lot less outrage.

Review pressure is shitty, but that score is laughable for how good NBA 2K games are.

2K18 has a plaque outside the playground with the names and dates of the guys who achieved legend reputation in 2K17. The earliest date was sometime in January. That's 4 months for someone who played the game non-stop.

It's practically impossible for almost every 2K player to play enough hours to ever reach that level and get those rewards.

 

[lush]

I feel like it rings a bit hollow considering the same reviewer gave NBA 2K17 an 8/10. VC has been around since 2K14 and has gotten worse and worse every year. Last year they gated cosmetics and animations behind VC while raising the prices of attributes and locking some of them behind the "Doin' Work" meter which was pure grinding for no reason.

 

[BadAss2961]

2K18 has a plaque outside the playground with the names and dates of the guys who achieved legend reputation in 2K17. The earliest date was sometime in January. That's 4 months for someone who played the game non-stop.

It's practically impossible for almost every 2K player to play enough hours to ever reach that level and get those rewards.

Last I played, Legend rep had nothing to do with VC though. Pure grind achievement meant for the top 1% of dedicated online players, and the rewards were just some extra MyPlayer moves and celebrations not essential to the game or how well your character plays. I reached Legend 1 playing a ton of 2K16. Seemed like you'd have to spend your whole life to reach Legend 3 and above.

But yeah, just a status symbol.

 

[Tubobutts]

Haven't played 2K18 yet, but my experience with VC over the years hasn't been bad. 99 without paying a dime has always been attainable for dedicated players who put in similar hours as others might put into an online RPG or a Destiny. Not even that much really.

I think people complain because the shortcut is there for people to take and for 2K to capitalize on. If the currency system were removed but the grind remained the same, there would probably be a lot less outrage.

Review pressure is shitty, but that score is laughable for how good NBA 2K games are.

The problem with 2k18 is that they made the grind significantly worse compared to older games in order to get you to buy VC. It takes ~200 full games to get to 85, not 99, 85. That's not even taking into account that literally every customization option for your player costs VC. They limited the amount of options you get when creating your character and then made haircuts cost 1000+ VC, despite having always been free, and then expect us to be thankful when they generously reduce the price to a mere 100. All animations outside of the basic ones have to be unlocked by your overall level and then purchased with VC. In MyTeam they've reduced the amount of contract cards you get from packs while still only giving you one player card per pack.

At least in this year's MyCareer they have a story reason for why you suck so much at basketball. Better than last year when I was a hyped up lottery pick whose rating was 20 lower than the guy picked after me.

 

[Danneee]

That’s real shitty. I’ll just put 2K on the pile of publishers who won’t get any money from me.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Last I played, Legend rep had nothing to do with VC though. Pure grind achievement meant for the top 1% of dedicated online players, and the rewards were just some extra MyPlayer moves and celebrations not essential to the game or how well your character plays. I reached Legend 1 playing a ton of 2K16. Seemed like you'd have to spend your whole life to reach Legend 3 and above.

But yeah, just a status symbol.

Levelling your pro up to 99 in 2K18 = Legend in 2K17

It isn't happening for most of us.

 

[GamePlay Johnny]

The main culprit here is not 2k, because they will always try to maximize profits and be jerks . The main culprit in this situation is TSA who backed down. If people back down, 2k will never change.

That pisses me off. If you put out a review , stick to it. Fuck 2k and their opinions . If gaming news can't do that, we are doomed

I don't agree with putting all the pressure on TSA. I am much, much more concerned that they were the ONLY outlet that reflected how butchered the game is by those micro transactions.

The game is sitting on an 88 Metacritic for the PS4 version. This is absolutely bonkers. The user Metacritic is 3.4. Reviews on Steam are "Mostly Negative" out of 2,426 reviews. Here are some quotes:

AAA price tag for a game that has more pay-to-win microtransactions than 99% of mobile games.

-start at 60 overall
-cannot run, shoot, pass, dribble, make open layups, rebound or get open
-need a lot of VC to upgrade your attributes
-can't earn VC because you can't play well without decent attributes
-a long, depressing grind to get to 70
-even then you are still rated the same as players who don't get a minute in a whole season

They're all pretty much complaining about the same thing. Outside TSA, the most critical review is a 75, and all the rest are 80+. I'm sorry but if anything TSA should be appreciated for standing up in the first place. It's much tougher to stand up to a huge cooperation when you're the odd sheep in the herd.

 

[Syriel]

To start with I also have concerns now with TSA as I mentioned a few posts above yours.....

I am not for sure I agree with your notion that a review site is either professional or hobbyist based on your aspect that they have people doing this outside their primary jobs. In fact that is a very poor criteria to use. Which makes it more odd that you go on to state that they could be staffed by part-timers.

The two concepts professional v hobbyist and full time v part time are separate. One can be professional part time and hobbyist full time, but you can't claim to be professional and then use the excuse that you're just a hobbyist outlet.

Furthermore what "standards" are there at all in place that you want them held accountable to?

Stand by reviews is the big one. Don't be afraid to pull a review if the review itself is objectively bad (see Football Manager), but otherwise stand your ground.

A big part of this though, is being funded enough to pay for what you need. If you aren't making enough $$$ to run yourself independently, you shouldn't present yourself as a professional outlet. Be a hobbyist site, be a fan site. Nothing wrong with that.

If 2K really did threaten to blacklist TSA, the immediate response from the EIC should have been a giggle and a "your loss." 2K can't prevent TSA from running reviews, and it certainly can't prevent freelancers from working for TSA.

Now, if TSA can't pay its writers, and doesn't have funds to purchase games, to the point where it is wholly dependent on PR contacts, then I would argue that it shouldn't be classified as a professional outlet as it can't meet the independence standards. If it's a bunch of guys and gals writing for fun, and it has no problem buying games when needed, or hiring a freelancer when a staffer can't manage a review, then it should be able to stay fully independent and compete as a professional outlet.

There is nothing wrong with being a hobbyist site, or an influencer. Hell, top influencers get paid a LOT more than gaming journalists get paid. But it's important to be upfront with what you are and how you present yourself.

Now your points regarding independence is another matter, I don't disagree with. But on that note it has long been suspected that publishers have an influence from time to time even on the big "professional" outlets

Not really. Any professional outlet has a strict separation between editorial and ads. There have been a handful of notable exceptions, but those are exceptions (that said, I am speaking about US media here, the lines are much more vague in EU land).

Yeah, we don't know......but spidey-sense tells us that if that's all that was said, the score would not have come down. To think there wasn't some type of strong-arm action going on is a bit naive IMO. The fact they are blocking twitter accounts that comment on VC is another huge sign

Even if they did (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, Sony once tried to blacklist me from reviews), the threat of a blacklist is laughable. It isn't going to hurt an independent outlet. PR knows this.

For pulling the score, but 2K isn't an innocent here.

Any PR is going to ask if there is a way to raise the score. PR ALWAYS ask about the score. Media outlets simply respond with "read the review."

Two rules to live by:
1) Never give out a score before publication. PR sees the score when the review goes live.
2) Never change a score unless the reviewer made a serious factual error. Updating a score should be a rarity.

What to you mean by "the review was accurate and it should have never been reviewed"?

That should have read "the review was accurate and it should have never been pulled."

I edited my post after you pointed this out.

 

[Crazyorloco]

I said this in the other thread but I am pretty sure there are other critics/reviewers have received similar messages from 2K. There's a huge disparity in the ratings among Critics and Users on metacritic. I see the backlash from players, but the critics seem okay with how things are.

Which is disappointing because if they do not address the VC issues/glitches (and have their scores impacted by it) then they are encouraging 2K to continue what they're doing. I understand it's a business, but customers are being negatively affected by it all. Disgusting VC/glitches galore have a direct impact on the enjoyment of the game. Review scores should reflect that. 3/10 is warranted in this case when your damn character you spent hours working on and paid for is deleted.

Anyone that thinks 3/10 is extreme needs to come and ask everyone in the 2K18 thread. I am sure most of the players will say that, even if they might personally score it higher, they can understand a 3/10 score.

EDIT: I forgot about the disappearing VC bug, people are earning VC in games only for it to disappear when you get back to the game hub.

Amen. I have never felt so strangely about a game. I love the gameplay and I think it's fun, but I hate the VC problems and the glitches. I've had my character deleted twice. It severely hampers the whole experience. Those that don't see the issues need to check 2k support's twitter(https://mobile.twitter.com/2ksupport) or the NBA 2k18 twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/NBA2K) a lot of people have issues. Or even check out our official NBA 2k18 thread. This game deserves the blacklash. Especially since nothing has been done since last Friday about the glitches. Deleted characters are still a thing as I type this (please note they managed to patch a legitimate way to get VC quicker though).

That kind of shit should have been fixed ASAP. People are losing money and time.

P.s. I didn't even know there was a disappearing VC glitch... wow.

 

[GamePlay Johnny]

The two concepts professional v hobbyist and full time v part time are separate. One can be professional part time and hobbyist full time, but you can't claim to be professional and then use the excuse that you're just a hobbyist outlet.

Stand by reviews is the big one. Don't be afraid to pull a review if the review itself is objectively bad (see Football Manager), but otherwise stand your ground.

A big part of this though, is being funded enough to pay for what you need. If you aren't making enough $$$ to run yourself independently, you shouldn't present yourself as a professional outlet. Be a hobbyist site, be a fan site. Nothing wrong with that.

Paying 60$ to purchase a game for review is not the problem, the problem is getting early access to the game so you can write a review when people actually care about reading them. Right not publishers control who has access to writing reviews. Buying the game at the store and posting a review a week after release is not exactly a winning formula in the current landscape.

Again, belittling TSA with stuff like "Be a hobbyist site" is not cool. So far it seems like all the "professional" sites did a terrible job of reflecting to the players what the experience of playing 2K18 is really like. The huge disparity between review scores and player scores doesn't really testify to the bigger sites being more "independent" than TSA.

 

[Talonz]

I almost bought this game, but then I remembered how saddled it is with the VC crapola in previous years. I bought NBA Live instead.

 

[LewieP]

Seems pretty unprofessional from the editor. If they wanted to reconsider the score it should have been done prior to publication, not after pressure from the publisher.

Of course publishers and their representatives will try and push things, the onus is on the editor to not let them. If the editor wants to serve their readers rather than the industry, that is.

 

[Coxy100]

Damn this is shit. Kudos to the reviewer for giving an honest review in the first place but it’s a shame it appears they can be influenced after the event...it affects their credibility.

Also 2k are scum

 

[CanUKlehead]

I was originally wary of the 3/10 protest score when the reviewer brought it up in the OT (seemed like something peripheral affecting the score too much), but hey, if that score puts 2K's panties in a wad enough to eventually incite change, so be it. To be fair, following the VC discussion in the OT has made me not want to buy this game after really pining for it (having not bought one since 2K14, i wanted this for the rookie class, and the Cavs not winning last year ).

Sounds like PR only cared about the numbers, and wouldn't care about the text otherwise. Sad situation.

Can't wait for Alex Navarro to Quick Look/review the game. He loves the series, but he'll tell it like it is.

 

[Ahasverus]

Why isn't the government looking into gambling/lootboxes/micro transactions? This shit is casino level of predatory.