Support NeoGAF

[GamePlay Johnny]

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

You have to be 21 to enter a Casino. My 14 year old brother is going crazy over GTA Online. I always buy games for him but I refuse to donate to micro transactions, so he ends up grinding to the point where I'm seriously doubting if he's enjoying the game.

 

[Wuiji]

This is my first NBA 2K game, and it'll be my last NBA 2K game. 3/10 is bang on correct. The game is basically pure bullshit. My guy has 90 for shooting 3 pointers. Yet, if I'm WIDE OPEN and just miss the 'excellent' timing, 9/10 times I'll still miss. It's all meaningless bullshit. You have to go through about 10 menus just to see what your player stats even are. The level up markers appear to have been complete and utter ass pulls, you can't even preview hairstyles that you have to spend a lot of VC to get. It's daylight robbery.

I got the game for a discounted rate through a friend, and I still feel totally ripped off. So much hidden bullshit going on in this game, and the solution is always:

Fuck this game. Fuck 2K. Fuck anybody who rated it highly.

Edit: It's also telling that they were quick as fuck to remove a way that players could grind for extra VC, but don't give a fuck about fixing disappearing VC earned from playing the game. Bunch of crooks.

 

[Sleight of Jam]

Just leave the review score up? Jheez what are they going to do blacklist you? Grow some balls TSA

 

[JABEE]

This should be unacceptable in this industry.

Other outlets should stand up to this bullying of a little site like The Sixthaxis.

It's shameful.

2K has a long history of PR bullying outlets for positive coverage and reviews of Rockstar games.

Sites like Metacritic have a policy of not changing the initial public score for a reason. I hope OpenCritic re-instates the initial score into their formula.

Read this article from 10 years ago written by Robert Ashley and Shawn Elliott.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129966/pr_and_the_game_media_how_pr_.php

 

[Head.spawn]

Extremely fair review, hopefully they stick to their review score.

To put it simply, nobody but CEOs and shills like microtransactions. People have tolerated it though for quite some time with backlash here and there but for the most part reluctantly if it wasn't abusive... but when it adversely affects the actual game like that, purposely slow progression, essentially impossible to enjoy customization and progression at the same time without cash, gives easily accessible route to better stats for online play with cash?

You've crossed the line into "screw you" territory.

 

[JABEE]

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.

Thanks for posting. This sucks. Your score should not be changed and the critique surrounding micro-transactions and its validity is not for the company you're covering to decide. micro-transactions are 100% a large factor in how modern games are designed and open to criticism.

2K shouldn't be able to get away with this garbage. And your editor really shouldn't have capitulated at all. OpenCritic removing the review score is also suspect, and they should have to answer for this as well.

 

[HariKari]

Keep the score up, attach an editor's note if you must.

Removing the score altogether just makes the site complicit. All credibility gone.

 

[JABEE]

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.

Yep. And you should insulate your editors from having to answer to 2K for it or change what is written. Removing the score is straight-up capitulation.

 

[JABEE]

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.

And the reason you do this is to also insulate your writers from these people as much as possible. For small outlets, editors can do this job.

 

[Sjefen]

A greedy publisher/dev not happy with a review pointing out their greed. Wtf is happening with the gaming business, this shit needs to stop. Mobile microtransactions in a fucking 60$ retail game is abysmal. What is the next step?

Anyone defending this IS the problem as well

 

[nekkid]

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

You're not staking one thing on the possibility of a higher return of the same thing.

Gambling would imply that you are paying money on potentially winning more money.

This is more akin to paying for a lucky dip. Unfortunately it is vastly more accessible, which is where the problem lies.

 

[xuchu]

Looking like another Gerstmann gate

 

[watdaeff4]

lots of words that I won't quote to save space but are nonetheless appreciated.

I understand professional vs hobbyist and full time vs part time are separate. That was my point. your initial post that I quoted, you bolded the reviewer in question statement about that not being his primary job and it appear you questioned the validity and "professional" status of his review because this was a secondary part-time job for him. If I misunderstOod that then my apologies.

Does TSA promote themselves as a hobbyist site or professional site? And do you know of examples where their actions contradict how they promote themselves? Unless I'm misunderstanding, it appears to me you have a concern of their legitimacy that they are trying to be a professional site when in fact they are "just" a hobbyist site. I truly don't know if you are right or wrong, just asking how you came to this stance (And tbh if your only validation of proof is this one instance; again while it's a negative for me.....could just be one mistake)

Sony may not have effectively influenced you, but again, there is definitely the sentiment that this has occurred.

And again, with all due respect, 2K IMO still seems shady here

 

[xrnzaaas]

Being blacklisted by a publisher really sucks, but yeah, if you want to be a respected journalist you should stand by what you say.

 

[watdaeff4]

Being blacklisted by a publisher really sucks, but yeah, if you want to be a respected journalist you should stand by what you say.

This I agree with and in a post I had on the last page I stated will now cause me to question the integrity of TSA reviews from here on out.

 

[TVexperto]

yeah they lost any credibility they had left. this is a no go.

thats why i only trust ACG

 

[TransTrender]

Wow, perfect

 

[funkystudent]

Just think of all the 2 games a year they could miss out on if they pissed off 2k.

 

[OléGunner]

This fucking industry needs microtransaction regulation.

I think 2017 has been a tipping point with publisher greed using micro's and loot boxes, 2018 will go into over drive.

OT: I hope TSA have the balls to stick to their original score and don't let 2k bully them into a higher one.
Their credibility is on the line here.

 

[dose]

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.

How or why can the review score change? You reviewed it and that's the score you gave. Nothing less than reinstating the same score will make Sixth Axis look spineless.
You should stick to your guns otherwise no one will ever trust any of your future reviews.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

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

Cause it ain't gambling no matter how much people on this site try to spin it.

 

[OléGunner]

Cause it ain't gambling no matter how much people on this site try to spin it.

Doesn't mean the government shouldn't look into it.
It's a new form of gambling through console and mobile that can be insanely predatory, esp to younger minds.

Something needs to be done in the coming years before all these devs run amok.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Doesn't mean the government shouldn't look into it.
It's a new form of gambling through console and mobile that can be insanely predatory, esp to younger minds.

Something needs to be done in the coming years before all these devs run amok.

It's not any form of gambling.

 

[Syriel]

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.

You are conveniently overlooking my comment about buying a review from a freelancer.

PR can withhold games from everyone, but they can't really do it selectively. Because if they try, you just commission a review from a writer that has an early copy.

This should be unacceptable in this industry.

Other outlets should stand up to this bullying of a little site like The Sixthaxis.

It's shameful.

2K has a long history of PR bullying outlets for positive coverage and reviews of Rockstar games.

Sites like Metacritic have a policy of not changing the initial public score for a reason. I hope OpenCritic re-instates the initial score into their formula.

Read this article from 10 years ago written by Robert Ashley and Shawn Elliott.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129966/pr_and_the_game_media_how_pr_.php

These quotes from the Gamasutra story are accurate:

Nasty e-mails aside, is there anything technically wrong with practice of blackballing? ”No," says Crecente. ”There's nothing wrong with that. They don't have an obligation to talk to us, just like we don't have an obligation to write about them. I posted it because I thought it provided an interesting glimpse into the way things are done in the industry. Not the blackballing part, but the fact that they were so surprised that I wouldn't just not run the story because they asked me. I'm not saying they did anything wrong.... They're supposed to ask me not the run the stories that they don't want me to run, and I'm supposed to post the stories that I think should be running."

Veteran Laura Heeb Mustard says that, in the end, blackballing isn't an effective strategy for a publicist—that, in fact, it's bad PR. ”While there are many ways to attempt to persuade a journalist to hold on a story, one way I would not recommend is by trying to bully them into not reporting the item," says Mustard. ”While there are some outlets that may retreat in fear of being cut off, there are others that will retaliate against your threats. Now, they're in a position of scooping your news—with the added bonus of a juicy story about how you tried to strong-arm them. We've seen a number of different cases of this recently, and quite frankly, in each case there are more effective strategies that could have been applied."

I understand professional vs hobbyist and full time vs part time are separate. That was my point. your initial post that I quoted, you bolded the reviewer in question statement about that not being his primary job and it appear you questioned the validity and "professional" status of his review because this was a secondary part-time job for him. If I misunderstOod that then my apologies.

Does TSA promote themselves as a hobbyist site or professional site? And do you know of examples where their actions contradict how they promote themselves? Unless I'm misunderstanding, it appears to me you have a concern of their legitimacy that they are trying to be a professional site when in fact they are "just" a hobbyist site. I truly don't know if you are right or wrong, just asking how you came to this stance (And tbh if your only validation of proof is this one instance; again while it's a negative for me.....could just be one mistake)

Sony may not have effectively influenced you, but again, there is definitely the sentiment that this has occurred.

And again, with all due respect, 2K IMO still seems shady here

I may not have been as clear as I thought I was with the quote then. I was trying to point out that TSA presents as a professional site (timely reviews, MC/OC indexed, etc.) so using "we just do this part time" as an excuse to capitulate is poor.

When you're competing at the professional level, you should be holding yourself to those standards.

It was a criticism of the reasoning presented for backing down, rather than the site as a whole.

Just think of all the 2 games a year they could miss out on if they pissed off 2k.

Then again, it could just be not wanting to miss out on dat swag.

Did a google search on NBA 2K and sixth axis because I wanted to read the review in question and this popped up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ3XyqU8rFo&feature=youtu.be&t=4m57s

Seems 2K was giving out Switch consoles to any outlet that attended the NBA review event in NYC.

Youtube video is from an Australian outlet.

 

[Poster#1]

Being blacklisted by a publisher really sucks, but yeah, if you want to be a respected journalist you should stand by what you say.

All what need to be said really.

 

[EvB]

This I agree with and in a post I had on the last page I stated will now cause me to question the integrity of TSA reviews from here on out.

And this is where the whole consort falls apart, as most games websites are essentially blogs.

 

[Kaleinc]

News at 11, reviews are effing useless.

'Begging for free review copies in exchange for good score'.

If I don't play a game and pull 4/10 out my ass it still carries more weight than press opinion.

 

[Diancecht]

As a gaming editor working in the largest gaming website in my country, I understand that there is a thin line between "getting blacklisted" and "having a credibility". A couple of publishers blacklisted us still to this day and we blacklisted a one or two because of their vile and gross behaviour towards us, the gaming sector and ours/their audience.

I don't know the details of this incident but I can safely say that, when you budge and give ground to a publisher, it won't stop there. You have to stand your ground if it means losing out on early review copies or insider information. I never asked my writers to change their score on a game based on the publisher reaction, even we have the said game on top of our website as a banner. You can burn bridges and build them again but you will never make up for your lost credibility.

 

[GamePlay Johnny]

You are conveniently overlooking my comment about buying a review from a freelancer.

I just don't agree that having to buy a review from a freelancer doesn't put you at a disadvantage compared to getting access to the game like other press outlets.

 

[Elephant]

The User Reviews on Metacritic make me happy. Fuck micro transactions. I wish the consumer would have this kind of reaction to all blatant money grabbing games such as this.

 

[watdaeff4]

I may not have been as clear as I thought I was with the quote then. I was trying to point out that TSA presents as a professional site (timely reviews, MC/OC indexed, etc.) so using "we just do this part time" as an excuse to capitulate is poor.

When you're competing at the professional level, you should be holding yourself to those standards.

It was a criticism of the reasoning presented for backing down, rather than the site as a whole.

Thank you for clearing that up. I am not reading that was the reason out of that post from the reviewer, but if it was, I understand your point.

And this is where the whole consort falls apart, as most games websites are essentially blogs.

What consort? A blog might just be a blog but give an honest opinion while another might not. Maybe I'm tired and misunderstanding what you think I said was inappropriate

 

[bombshell]

The User Reviews on Metacritic make me happy. Fuck micro transactions. I wish the consumer would have this kind of reaction to all blatant money grabbing games such as this.

Yeah, user review score on Metacritic is 3.4 right now, so the 3/10 score from TSA is by great distance the closest critics score

 

[OléGunner]

It's not any form of gambling.

Fair enough man, but I still want to see some sort of regulation regardless of whatever you wanna call it.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Dangerous precedent

 

[cripterion]

This + the fact that it gets the PS4 pro as loud as a jet engine doesn't make me wanna touch my digital copy.

 

[HellofaMouse]

"about 5% of our customers were going to read that review. Lets pressure them to take it down and make sure everybody knows how awful we are"

 

[Diancecht]

"about 5% of our customers were going to read that review. Lets pressure them to take it down and make sure everybody knows how awful we are"

I hear what you are saying but 5% is a generous estimate.

 

[OriginalJonty]

UPDATE:

Score will be restored as 3/10. Statement from TSA site editor to follow later. We're totally aware that as a site we won't come through this unscathed reputation wise. I must make clear that as far as I am aware there will be no blacklisting from 2K over this.

 

[OriginalJonty]

I hear whar you are saying but 5% is a generous estimate.

I wish we had those kind of readership numbers.

 

[Mr.Pig]

Is 2K the new EA? Remember when we hated them before 2010?

No, we still hate EA.

 

[NHale]

"about 5% of our customers were going to read that review. Lets pressure them to take it down and make sure everybody knows how awful we are"

I'm sure 2K Games is not worried about the particular review, they know the only outlets that actually intercept their "in the fence" customers are IGN, Gamespot and Operation Sports. That's why they centered their previews via those websites... Sixth Axis review isn't going to generate any significant impact in the sales of the game.

The problem is that The Sixth Axis will count for their Metacritic, and one of the things 2K Games like to brag about is the "#1 - best rated sports game*" *according to Metacritic.

They even put a badge about it on the cover of the game...

 

[SilentRage47]

It's really sad that the core gameplay of the game is SO GOOD this year, they've ruined it all with this VC bullshit.

 

[KaYotiX]

It's really sad that the core gameplay of the game is SO GOOD this year, they've ruined it all with this VC bullshit.

Agree, it's the main reason I'm returning it.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Welcome to why I haven't played any mode besides play now or my league for over an hour in 2k since 2k maybe 14?

The vc infested modes are bad but just worsened by greed.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

Just think of all the 2 games a year they could miss out on if they pissed off 2k.

2k Games are owned by Take Two, who also own RockStar Games. So missing out on even one game could be a HUGE deal.

I'm not saying they should have caved, but they didn't do so out of fear they wouldn't get to cover a couple of sports games.

 

[NHale]

Comment on their review by someone from TheSixthAxis

Stefan L Community Team Since: May 2009

To be crystal clear, 2K haven't put pressure on us, they asked us to reconsider the score and questioned the use of the word ”protest" which is wrong in this context and completely on me. There's no worries about inappropriate blacklisting or anything like that. We're still waiting on the statement because they are trying to improve the balance, it's just whether or not they are prepared to reveal how they will be doing that, but we'll be returning a score and explaining what happened at 1 today. Appreciate the support. It's a bit of a faff...

Comment posted on 22/09/2017 at 11:35.

 

[Sjefen]

Comment on their review by someone from TheSixthAxis

Perfect. I wish some of the big websites had the BALLS too call out these anti consumer games

 

[IISANDERII]

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.

This is why I don't trust most review sites. Giantbomb is one I do and maybe T6A will be one after this.

The other one I trust is Angry Joe.

 

[hbkdx12]

UPDATE:

Score will be restored as 3/10. Statement from TSA site editor to follow later. We're totally aware that as a site we won't come through this unscathed reputation wise. I must make clear that as far as I am aware there will be no blacklisting from 2K over this.

Glad to hear the score will be the same. Was never a fan of the idea that the score could have been changed based on something 2k saying/doing something or patching the game or whatever.

Unless a review is just intellectually dishonest, the review should stand as it based on the current product at the time of review or at most at the time of release given that day 1 patches are so common.

Reviews shouldn't turn into these "review windows" where someone might have serious issues with the game and score it a certain way but then being willing to change the score if the devs tweak some stuff within the first week of release.

 

[Zafir]

Glad to see the score coming back, hopefully it won't cause much negative repercussions. Wish more reviews would have docked points for the shitty micro-transactions.