Support NeoGAF

[RafterXL]

Yes, they just suggested that: this is what all press members who talked about it said. Those who wanted published the review before and nothing happened.

This is a PvP live service game with dozens of hours of stuff to learn, and after them it's when you see the point of Cryo and ranked and why they (and the rest of the game) are so great and why they get unlocked later.

That full experience, like in most live PvP service games can't be experienced in the same way before release playing only with a few other journalists so it's better to wait and play the game properly in real conditions. This isn't unethical, it's common sense.

The publishers don't buy the journalists Ferraris, Playboy mansions and helicopters: they just give the game for free for those who want to review it. The press/streamers are free to (in fact, some do it) don't get it from them and buy the games instead.

On top of this, it was endgame content that unlocks at level 25, which was the level I achieved the day they were unlocked. Meaning, to have released these two things before wouldn't have changed much things because people wouldn't have seen them because it required a few weeks of play, so many/most people wouldn't have seen it anyways until around they were released.

Access is gold in the journalism industry. They don't have to buy them cars, or whatever, we've seen multiple times other developers deny access to their previews and products because a journalist did something the developer didn't like. It would not shock me at all if we don't eventually see some of these journalists come out and talk about how they felt pressured by this request.

And can we quit with this nonsense about it being a live service game and requires you to play it for a month to understand it? There was an entire history of these games before Marathon existed, and none of them had developers ask them to wait a month to review them. Everything you claim only makes sense if you ignore every other live service game to ever be made. It makes zero sense and is absolutely an unethical request by a giant ass publisher that has a massive power imbalance over these journalists.

Arc Raiders had more reviews drop on launch week than Marathon has a month later. And you can go down the list with GaaS titles that are exactly the same. hell, World of Warcraft is an MMO, and MMOs change more than any PvP shooter ever made will ever change, and it gets reviews on launch week of every expansion.

There is literally nothing special about Marathon that it deserves special reviewing rules that other games like it don't receive.

I don't see what they achieved buy doing so if what you say is true, maybe it is... If they paid reviewers (or pressured) them to give a good review why didn't they just do that at launch?

The game is solid, if you are into this sort of thing. Steam reviews, PS user reviews, MC, OC all corroborate this, and the folks in the OT concur. Not sure why that's so hard to believe.

They didn't achieve anything, it still sold poorly and it's aggregate score isn't exactly great either, but that doesn't mean their intent wasn't to influence both of those things. And if the game is so great, which could very well be the case, why even ask reviewers to wait? Makes zero sense unless Bungie weren't exactly convinced. Either way, it's a bad look and something that should have never been asked.

That wasn't what the 'request' was, as you well know.

They buy them with access. Wouldn't surprise me if it goes beyond that at times though, given the apparent lack of integrity.

If these were political journalists, everyone would admit what happened here, but it's gaming so they'll defend it as not serious or important. And, yes, access makes or breaks journalistic careers. Being blacklisted or shut out from these giant developers and publishers would be a huge blow for most of these sites.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Access is gold in the journalism industry. They don't have to buy them cars, or whatever, we've seen multiple times other developers deny access to their previews and products because a journalist did something the developer didn't like. It would not shock me at all if we don't eventually see some of these journalists come out and talk about how they felt pressured by this request.

And can we quit with this nonsense about it being a live service game and requires you to play it for a month to understand it? There was an entire history of these games before Marathon existed, and none of them had developers ask them to wait a month to review them. Everything you claim only makes sense if you ignore every other live service game to ever be made. It makes zero sense and is absolutely an unethical request by a giant ass publisher that has a massive power imbalance over these journalists.

Arc Raiders had more reviews drop on launch week than Marathon has a month later. And you can go down the list with GaaS titles that are exactly the same. hell, World of Warcraft is an MMO, and MMOs change more than any PvP shooter ever made will ever change, and it gets reviews on launch week of every expansion.

There is literally nothing special about Marathon that it deserves special reviewing rules that other games like it don't receive.

They didn't achieve anything, it still sold poorly and it's aggregate score isn't exactly great either, but that doesn't mean their intent wasn't to influence both of those things. And if the game is so great, which could very well be the case, why even ask reviewers to wait? Makes zero sense unless Bungie weren't exactly convinced. Either way, it's a bad look and something that should have never been asked.

If these were political journalists, everyone would admit what happened here, but it's gaming so they'll defend it as not serious or important. And, yes, access makes or breaks journalistic careers. Being blacklisted or shut out from these giant developers and publishers would be a huge blow for most of these sites.

Destiny works the same way with raids.. most full reviews weren't till they dropped. This is nothing new other than trying to spin the narrative and doing a piss poor job at that.

 

[clarky]

Access is gold in the journalism industry. They don't have to buy them cars, or whatever, we've seen multiple times other developers deny access to their previews and products because a journalist did something the developer didn't like. It would not shock me at all if we don't eventually see some of these journalists come out and talk about how they felt pressured by this request.

And can we quit with this nonsense about it being a live service game and requires you to play it for a month to understand it? There was an entire history of these games before Marathon existed, and none of them had developers ask them to wait a month to review them. Everything you claim only makes sense if you ignore every other live service game to ever be made. It makes zero sense and is absolutely an unethical request by a giant ass publisher that has a massive power imbalance over these journalists.

Arc Raiders had more reviews drop on launch week than Marathon has a month later. And you can go down the list with GaaS titles that are exactly the same. hell, World of Warcraft is an MMO, and MMOs change more than any PvP shooter ever made will ever change, and it gets reviews on launch week of every expansion.

There is literally nothing special about Marathon that it deserves special reviewing rules that other games like it don't receive.

They didn't achieve anything, it still sold poorly and it's aggregate score isn't exactly great either, but that doesn't mean their intent wasn't to influence both of those things. And if the game is so great, which could very well be the case, why even ask reviewers to wait? Makes zero sense unless Bungie weren't exactly convinced. Either way, it's a bad look and something that should have never been asked.

If these were political journalists, everyone would admit what happened here, but it's gaming so they'll defend it as not serious or important. And, yes, access makes or breaks journalistic careers. Being blacklisted or shut out from these giant developers and publishers would be a huge blow for most of these sites.

They asked them to wait so they could take into consideration all the release content.

 

[calico]

As I said they just did a suggestion to wait to play the endgame features...

You were talking about reviewing based on playing pre-release only with other journalists. This is not what is being suggested, and the nature of the request was not 'please wait for release so the game is populated'.

There was no related embargo at all mandating them to wait until the Cryo and ranked release.

They could not enforce a post-release embargo, obviously. The 'request' was -rather pathetically- treated by most outlets as amounting to the same thing.

it's better to wait some time after launch if they want to make a proper review.

Reviewers should be perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how much of a product currently on the market they need to play before providing a review of it.

To give a complete picture then all the content that you are paying for should be considered when reviewing the product.

The content included within the product as it is being sold should be considered.

If they only reviewed the early game then the review isn't complete and should have been labelled as such.

It isn't 'the early game' if it's the entirety of the game as it is being sold. It would be a review of the product in the state it's being sold, like any other.

The request to delay reviews was reasonable.

They can make the request. Any professional reviewer with any integrity or self-respect would have told them to eat shit and to release their games in a more complete state if they want a better review in future.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

They can make the request. Any professional reviewer with any integrity or self-respect would have told them to eat shit and to release their games in a more complete state if they want a better review in future.

Not at all.

All the parties involved can, and did, do what they wanted. Some people wanted reviews as early as possible, which is fair, but a review without Cryo Archive is now outdated.

No need to be salty one way or the other.

 

[clarky]

The content included within the product as it is being sold should be considered.

That's correct. That content includes Cryo Archive. Should they have not taken into account the 3rd Map either because that wasn't available day one?

It isn't 'the early game' if it's the entirety of the game as it is being sold. It would be a review of the product in the state it's being sold, like any other.

Its not the entireity of the game being sold.

I don't think you understand the product you are arguing against. The content isn't released day one as nobody would be able to play it. It's end game content, they don't release it day one so data miners don't spoil it for the community. They have been releasing content like this in Destiny for years.

Wouldn't you like to know if the new raid in destiny is bad or good before you committed to a purchase? Or would you rather have half the picture as you are suggesting?

 

[calico]

That content includes Cryo Archive.

What I said really wasn't difficult to follow. The game was being sold when the weeks-post-launch Cryo content was not yet in the game. They should have got on and reviewed the game in the condition it was being sold, as they would any other, and as I'm sure many of them would if not for the 'suggestion' to do otherwise.

Should they have not taken into account the 3rd Map either because that wasn't available day one?

They shouldn't have held off reviewing the game waiting for it, that's for sure.

Or would you rather have half the picture as you are suggesting?

I would rather have reviewers who do not allow the conditions of their reviews to be 'suggested' to them by the seller of the product they are ostensibly reviewing. Review the product in the state it is being sold, and review post-launch content separately if necessary.

In this case, consumers had to make do with very few reviews throughout the launch period -when they were most likely to be making their purchasing decision- because the review industry was still waiting for the conditions 'suggested' by the seller to be met. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. The degree to which the review industry bent over for the seller should also be treated as reason enough to doubt the integrity of those reviews.

 

[clarky]

What I said really wasn't difficult to follow. The game was being sold when the weeks-post-launch Cryo content was not yet in the game. They should have got on and reviewed the game in the condition it was being sold, as they would any other, and as I'm sure many of them would if not for the 'suggestion' to do otherwise.


They shouldn't have held off reviewing the game waiting for it, that's for sure.


I would rather have reviewers who do not allow the conditions of their reviews to be 'suggested' to them by the seller of the product they are ostensibly reviewing. Review the product in the state it is being sold, and review post-launch content separately if necessary.

In this case, consumers had to make do with very few reviews throughout the launch period -when they were most likely to be making their purchasing decision- because the review industry was still waiting for the conditions 'suggested' by the seller to be met. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. The degree to which the review industry bent over for the seller should also be treated as reason enough to doubt the integrity of those reviews.

Consumers had five days before launch to see if they liked it for free.

Like i said you don't seem to understand the concept of these types of games they aren't static like a single player title. They could have launched the 4th map day one but nobody would have the gear to play it for a few weeks, but it would have been spoiled by data miners. No point going round in circles on this well just have to agree to disagree.

The only thing we do agree on is that they should have just left reviewers to it.

 

[danklord]

What I said really wasn't difficult to follow. The game was being sold when the weeks-post-launch Cryo content was not yet in the game. They should have got on and reviewed the game in the condition it was being sold, as they would any other, and as I'm sure many of them would if not for the 'suggestion' to do otherwise.


They shouldn't have held off reviewing the game waiting for it, that's for sure.


I would rather have reviewers who do not allow the conditions of their reviews to be 'suggested' to them by the seller of the product they are ostensibly reviewing. Review the product in the state it is being sold, and review post-launch content separately if necessary.

In this case, consumers had to make do with very few reviews throughout the launch period -when they were most likely to be making their purchasing decision- because the review industry was still waiting for the conditions 'suggested' by the seller to be met. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. The degree to which the review industry bent over for the seller should also be treated as reason enough to doubt the integrity of those reviews.

Cryo was in the game, it just was not unlocked yet because it's part of the game experience and narrative.

If Cryo was a dlc, then yes, you may have a point. But it WAS in the game, it just required the game's online state and community to reveal it as part of the experience.

Do you think live service games, which depend on online community for the gameplay experience, are capable of being reviewed in a preview-state before the live service is launched?

 

[yurinka]

You were talking about reviewing based on playing pre-release only with other journalists. This is not what is being suggested, and the nature of the request was not 'please wait for release so the game is populated'.

They could not enforce a post-release embargo, obviously. The 'request' was -rather pathetically- treated by most outlets as amounting to the same thing.

Publishers set embargos of many things: dates for the embargo of game previews, of game reviews, of expansions reviews, of game announcements and many other things. Plus sometimes also ask them some sttuff like to don't spoil certain specific surprises. Sometimes they are just given the stuff and don't set any embargo date.

In this case several media outlets said they didn't have any specific date for the review but that were suggested to play the game live with the rest of the players and wait to play the endgame stuff before making the review. The endgame wasn't not only released/unlocked a few days after launch, it also was unlocked with some ARG where players did stuff together, which is something pretty likely they'll keep doing in the future when adding more stuff.

Obviously reviews without that and without the experience of playing not only with a few journalists would be incomplete and quickly outadated, as happened in many other previous live service games.

Reviewers should be perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how much of a product currently on the market they need to play before providing a review of it.


The content included within the product as it is being sold should be considered.

It isn't 'the early game' if it's the entirety of the game as it is being sold. It would be a review of the product in the state it's being sold, like any other.

They can make the request. Any professional reviewer with any integrity or self-respect would have told them to eat shit and to release their games in a more complete state if they want a better review in future.

Reviewers wouldn't have been able to properly review a hardcore PvP game without having played enough the game to not only see the endgame, but also how it was unlocked/added to the game with the ARG with help of different players, because they don't have crystal balls and that couldn't be replicated for a few people in closed environment. Their review would have been incomplete, unprofessional and outdated a few weeks after having posted.

It wasn't just to have the map unlocked: it was the experience of unlocking it, and in addition to this the process of mastering the gameplay before being able to access it, and to have collected good enough gear to use it there, a process that will be done weekly. Which will be a key part of the game.

It would have been like those reviews of SP games made without having completed the game. Like the ones complaining about lack of females in Wukong when there were females in the act 2 or 3.

 

[calico]

But it WAS in the game, it just required the game's online state and community to reveal it as part of the experience.

"Cryo Archive has been added to the game." - Steam patch March 17th.

And no it was not unlocked by the community, it was arbitrarily unlocked by the seller after the community failed to reach the arbitrary goal set to unlock it. There was nothing anyone playing could do that would result in being able to play this post-launch content prior to that point. It was not in any meaningful sense 'in the game' prior to that point.

Do you think live service games, which depend on online community for the gameplay experience, are capable of being reviewed in a preview-state before the live service is launched?

Same straw man yurinka used previously.

without the experience of playing not only with a few journalists...

(And is still using.)

Publishers set embargos of many things: dates for the embargo of game previews, of game reviews, of expansions reviews, of game announcements and many other things. Plus sometimes also ask them some sttuff like to don't spoil certain specific surprises. Sometimes they are just given the stuff and don't set any embargo date.

How is any of this relevant to my statement that they couldn't enforce a post-release embargo?

It would have been like those reviews of SP games made without having completed the game. Like the ones complaining about lack of females in Wukong when there were females in the act 2 or 3.

If Acts 2 and 3 were only added to the game weeks post-launch, a review of 'Act 1' would be a complete review of the product as it is being sold. Setting aside that complaining about 'lack of females' would be a pretty dumb criticism regardless; criticising the game based on the absence or inclusion of something within the only content which is currently in the game would be perfectly reasonable.

Plenty of games make major improvements post-launch. It is absolutely not standard practice for the review industry to give a month's grace period post-launch for these to occur before reviewing a game.

The standard position of the review industry should be 'if you don't want your game reviewed in state x, don't sell it in state x', not 'go ahead and sell it in state x and we'll hold off on reviewing it until you say we can'.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

"Cryo Archive has been added to the game." - Steam patch March 17th.

And no it was not unlocked by the community, it was arbitrarily unlocked by the seller after the community failed to reach the arbitrary goal set to unlock it. There was nothing anyone playing could do that would result in being able to play this post-launch content prior to that point. It was not in any meaningful sense 'in the game' prior to that point.


Same straw man yurinka used previously.


(And is still using.)


How is any of this relevant to my statement that they couldn't enforce a post-release embargo?


If Acts 2 and 3 were only added to the game weeks post-launch, a review of 'Act 1' would be a complete review of the product as it is being sold. Setting aside that complaining about 'lack of females' would be a pretty dumb criticism regardless; criticising the game based on the absence or inclusion of something within the only content which is currently in the game would be perfectly reasonable.

Plenty of games make major improvements post-launch. It is absolutely not standard practice for the review industry to give a month's grace period post-launch for these to occur before reviewing a game.

The standard position of the review industry should be 'if you don't want your game reviewed in state x, don't sell it in state x', not 'go ahead and sell it in state x and we'll hold off on reviewing it until you say we can'.

Sony and Bungie knew they had a disaster, so they had to come up with an idea I've never seen in gaming history. I dont think any other GAAS I've ever seen reco to reviewers to hold off reviews till more content came out. You can tell because other big name GAAS games get tons of reviews uploaded to the net day one. A big name game might have 50 reviews recapped on Meta or Open critic by the time they get home from work or school. But for Marathon it was maybe 5 from random game sites who didnt care.

It's not even just a gaming thing.

When was the last time you ever heard tv studios tell reviewers to not review any episodes until the full season of 10 episodes launch by month end to ensure they get the whole story instead of one 60 minute episode at a time. Never happens. You review what is released.

Probably the closest thing I remember to skew critics reviews was when MoH Warfighter came out. It was such a disaster, EA sent reviewers some kind of guideline PDF file to help them with tips how to enjoy the game more. I remember it well because someone uploaded it to the net and I downloaded it for laughs.

 

[Bernardougf]

shilling really has no limits.

 

[danklord]

"Cryo Archive has been added to the game." - Steam patch March 17th.

And no it was not unlocked by the community, it was arbitrarily unlocked by the seller after the community failed to reach the arbitrary goal set to unlock it. There was nothing anyone playing could do that would result in being able to play this post-launch content prior to that point. It was not in any meaningful sense 'in the game' prior to that point.


Same straw man yurinka used previously.


(And is still using.)


How is any of this relevant to my statement that they couldn't enforce a post-release embargo?


If Acts 2 and 3 were only added to the game weeks post-launch, a review of 'Act 1' would be a complete review of the product as it is being sold. Setting aside that complaining about 'lack of females' would be a pretty dumb criticism regardless; criticising the game based on the absence or inclusion of something within the only content which is currently in the game would be perfectly reasonable.

Plenty of games make major improvements post-launch. It is absolutely not standard practice for the review industry to give a month's grace period post-launch for these to occur before reviewing a game.

The standard position of the review industry should be 'if you don't want your game reviewed in state x, don't sell it in state x', not 'go ahead and sell it in state x and we'll hold off on reviewing it until you say we can'.

There should be studies made on this forced outrage and delusion. It's incredible. I'm impressed.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Sony and Bungie knew they had a disaster, so they had to come up with an idea I've never seen in gaming history. I dont think any other GAAS I've ever seen reco to reviewers to hold off reviews till more content came out. You can tell because other big name GAAS games get tons of reviews uploaded to the net day one. A big name game might have 50 reviews recapped on Meta or Open critic by the time they get home from work or school. But for Marathon it was maybe 5 from random game sites who didnt care.

It's not even just a gaming thing.

When was the last time you ever heard tv studios tell reviewers to not review any episodes until the full season of 10 episodes launch by month end to ensure they get the whole story instead of one 60 minute episode at a time. Never happens. You review what is released.

Probably the closest thing I remember to skew critics reviews was when MoH Warfighter came out. It was such a disaster, EA sent reviewers some kind of guideline PDF file to help them with tips how to enjoy the game more. I remember it well because someone uploaded it to the net and I downloaded it for laughs.

shilling really has no limits.

You all just bouncing your delusions back and forth like a tennis match, entertaining!

 

[Bernardougf]

You all just bouncing your delusions back and forth like a tennis match, entertaining!