Support NeoGAF

[dreamstation]

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

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

 

[sainraja]

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

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

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

 

[dreamstation]

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

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

 

[sainraja]

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

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

 

[LyricalShrike]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sainraja]

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



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

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

 

[LyricalShrike]

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

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

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

 

[sainraja]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guardian Monkey]

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

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

 

[LyricalShrike]

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

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

 

[Guardian Monkey]

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

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

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Game Information

Game Title: Marathon

Platforms:

• Xbox Series X/S (Mar 5, 2026)
• PlayStation 5 (Mar 5, 2026)
• PC (Mar 5, 2026)

Trailer:

• Rook Cinematic | Marathon
• Marathon - Rook Cinematic Trailer | PS5 & PC Games
• Launch Gameplay Trailer | Marathon

Developer: Bungie

Review Aggregator:

OpenCritic - 73 average - 63% recommended
Marathon - Not enough for aggregate yet

Critic Reviews


Cerealkillerz - Gabriel Bogdan - German - 7.3 / 10



Chicas Gamers - Daniel López - Spanish - 7.9 / 10



Entertainment Geekly - Luis Alvaro - 2 / 5



EvelonGames - Joel Isern Rodríguez - Kaym - Spanish - 8.4 / 10



GamePro - Tobias Veltin - German - Unscored



NoobFeed - Azfar Rayan - 68 / 100



PPE.pl - Polish - 7 / 10



Screen Rant - Chris Carter - 7 / 10



VGC - Diego Arguello - 4 / 5

I'm Nostradamus... I knew that game was going to be a flop... Even though they hid their reviews and tried to hide the truth...

 

[manfestival]

its kinda weird when it comes to this game. I do truly believe that some people love the game but I really have severe doubt in the authenticity of those bigger organizations that are dropping those critic reviews. especially after waiting to drop their reviews

 

[LyricalShrike]

I'm Nostradamus... I knew that game was going to be a flop... Even though they hid their reviews and tried to hide the truth...

Marathon Reviews - Metacritic

A massive ghost ship hangs in low orbit over a lost colony. The 30,000 souls who called this world home have disappeared without a trace. Strange signals hint at rumors of mysterious artifacts, long-dormant AI, and troves of untold riches. You are a cybernetic mercenary - a Runner - and your...

www.metacritic.com

 

[Topher]

 

[Hollywood Hitman]

As good as veilgard!

 

[seb85]

IGN review is 100% paid

 

[coachmcguirk91]

As good as veilgard!

Game is great to the relatively niche audience it caters to. User rating of 86% on Steam and 9.1 on PS5

 

[pulicat]

I'm glad the media reviews have been delayed. CCU and sales are the real barometer of game quality.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Anything less than a 10/10 is suspect imo. Only time it's a 6/10 is when I die 6 matches in a row.

 

[diffusionx]

He's not saying anything that hasn't been said, if you like the game you really like it, if you don't, you bounce off it quick.

 

[adamsapple]

Anything less than a 10/10 is suspect imo. Only time it's a 6/10 is when I die 6 matches in a row.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

He's not saying anything that hasn't been said, if you like the game you really like it, if you don't, you bounce off it quick.

Travis did say that Marathon was limiting its player base because of its sci fi horror aesthetic which I thought was dumb as f**k.

It's aesthetic is Fortnite for slightly older gamers.

 

[Hollywood Hitman]

Game is great to the relatively niche audience it caters to. User rating of 86% on Steam and 9.1 PS5

Would've loved to see you on the Titanic

 

[coachmcguirk91]

Would've loved to see you on the Titanic

I would be enjoying myself as I played the violin. Hell of a way to go out

 

[IbizaPocholo]

"Marathon is unapproachable, unforgiving, offputtingly creepy, and has a playerbase of violent goblins who exist solely to bash your face in with a brick, and for all of these reasons it's become my favorite extraction shooter of all time. The gunplay is everything you'd hope for from a Bungie game, the loot and progression systems have got me completely hooked, the maps continue to surprise me after dozens of hours, and the endgame activity and process of unraveling the unsettling lore has been absolutely worth sticking around for. There's still plenty of room for improvement, like the onboarding and UI that's honestly pretty awful – plus we could already use some more maps and a few balancing passes to shake up the meta – but these issues feel pretty minor compared to what Bungie has been able to pull off. Marathon is, quite frankly, sick as hell and has become my latest PvP obsession."

 

[SnapShot]

 

[Kokoloko85]

Hopefully Destiny 3, and rethink half the shit that killed D2. But let's be honest, engine upgrade at a minimum and a new Destiny? That's like 8/9 years away

They have been working on D3 according to rumours.

I doubt it takes 8 years lol, unless they are working on something else to release first

 

[clarky]

They have been working on D3 according to rumours.

I doubt it takes 8 years lol, unless they are working on something else to release first

This took six.

8 years for a significantly bigger project isn't out of the relms of possibility for the folks over at Bungie who do Yoga and knitting instead of grafting.

 

[clarky]

I'm glad the media reviews have been delayed. CCU and sales are the real barometer of game quality.

COD must be the greatest game of all time then?

 

[Kokoloko85]

This took six.

8 years for a significantly bigger project isn't out of the relms of possibility for the folks over at Bungie who do Yoga and knitting instead of grafting.

This wasn't being worked on by the full Team all the time.

And they've probably been working on D3 already.

Unless they are working on something else, they'll have D3 out by a 3-4 years I think. Or continue with D2

 

[clarky]

This wasn't being worked on by the full Team all the time.

Neither would D3.

And they've probably been working on D3 already.

Not for long I don't think. We know 300 people have been on Marathon for the final push and the rest have been working on D2 content, which got delayed to enable Marathons release.

Unless they are working on something else, they'll have D3 out by a 3-4 years I think. Or continue with D2

I'd be very surprised if it is out this decade, if its even in development. Love to be wrong though, Destiny was decent for a time.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Neither would D3.

Not for long I don't think. We know 300 people have been on Marathon for the final push and the rest have been working on D2 content, which got delayed to enable Marathons release.

I'd be very surprised if it is out this decade, if its even in development. Love to be wrong though, Destiny was decent for a time.

Hopefully it comes out before 8-9 years though

 

[Instant_Classic]

IGN review is 100% paid

100%, Bungie wrote them a phat check.

 

[clarky]

Hopefully it comes out before 8-9 years though

At best they started preproduction straight after TFS, unlikely as they seemed to go all in on supporting D2 at that point.

I'd say if anything its under a year in. So my guess would be another 5, but knowing Bungie a reboot or two along the way would indeed stretch it to another 7.

On the plus side they updates that they made to the engine and the speed at which they are now reacting to stuff in Marathon bodes well if they do ever get D3 out of the door.

 

[yurinka]

I wonder why MC is stuck at 47 reviews, Opencritic has 81 critics so far even if not updated with them. Are Metacritic and Opencritic updated manually?

Not for long I don't think. We know 300 people have been on Marathon for the final push and the rest have been working on D2 content, which got delayed to enable Marathons release.

As I remember, after the 2024 restructuring Bungie had 850 people (a little more than when were acquired by Sony).
I think people left to work in Destiny 2 post-TFS stuff shouldn't be a lot, I bet maximum 150-200 people. Destiny 2 development was supposed to initially stop in The Final Shape, but they decided to keep working on it because still had a big enough active userbase, but I assume with a smaller team, also in part I assume to try to make some extra money with D2 to complensate the Lightfall underperformance.

Team LFG and people working for central SIE/PS Studios teams already had moved on. I'd say they may have maybe around 50 people working in Destiny Rising and non-gaming adaptations.

Meaning, they have 300-400 people working in unannounced Destiny/Marathon games, which is were Bungie was going to focus after branching out Team LFG. And now that they shipped Marathon, very likely they reduced its team because normally the post launch / live ops team of a GaaS is smaller than the one games have for the final push to release it.

This means they have minimum an unannounced game in full development since at least 2024, and probably multiple titles in early stages of development, from preproduction to early stages of production.

Hopefully it comes out before 8-9 years though

Being a new IP that had a development reboot mid development, Marathon took them around 5-6 years. Being a sequel, a lot of things of the world building, mechanics, modes, design, balance, etc. already is done. Since costs skyrocket every generation, I assume this time they'll separate PvE and PvP into different games.

I assume they should able to make in 4-5 years, of which they may have worked at least 1-2, even at the same time:

• A Destiny 3 PvE game that continues the story, around 10-15h campaign at launch and stuff like raids or dungeons and extra episodes to be added post launch (if allowed with their Activision deal, maybe including D1 and D2 remade ones)
• A Destiny PvP game that would mix D3 maps with remade D1 and D2 maps. They'd keep including gear from D1 (if allowed by Activision deal), D2, D3

 

[clarky]

I wonder why MC is stuck at 47 reviews, Opencritic has 81 critics so far even if not updated with them. Are Metacritic and Opencritic updated manually?


As I remember, after the 2024 restructuring Bungie had 850 people (a little more than when were acquired by Sony).
I think people left to work in Destiny 2 post-TFS stuff shouldn't be a lot, I bet maximum 150-200 people. Team LFG and people working for central SIE/PS Studios teams already had moved on. I'd say they may have maybe around 50 people working in Destiny Rising and non-gaming adaptations.

Meaning, they have 300-400 people working in unannounced Destiny/Marathon games, which is were Bungie was going to focus after branching out Team LFG. And now that they shipped Marathon, very likely they reduced its team because normally the post launch / live ops team of a GaaS is smaller than the one games have for the final push to release it.

This means they have minimum an unannounced game in full development since at least 2024, and probably multiple titles in early stages of development, from preproduction to early stages of production.

Isn't that 850 people total? Not all will be dev's. I think you maths might be right, but accounts for most if not all of the development teams (300 Marathon. 200-300 on Destiny content).

 

[clarky]

Marathon review: Give this love affair a chance and it will go the distance

Bungie has been responsible for some of the smartest, most innovative shooters in videogame history, with each release upending expectations of the genre.

m.independent.ie

 

[yurinka]

I find a major platform holder "asking" access media to hold off reviews to align with post-launch marketing to be highly unethical.

They didn't mandate via enbargo to wait until that release. They just suggested them to play it for a while post launch and wait to see these endgame features.

I find a major platform holder "asking" access media to hold off reviews to align with post-launch marketing to be highly unethical.

They didn't mandate via enbargo to wait until that update. They just suggested them to play it for a while post launch and wait to see these endgame features because it would give them a better idea of the whole concept of the game in the long term. There's absolutely nothing unethical on it.

Isn't that 850 people total? Not all will be dev's. I think you maths might be right, but accounts for most if not all of the development teams (300 Marathon. 200-300 on Destiny content).

Yes, not 100% of a studio are devs, and part of these 300 for Marathon and so on aren't devs.

It's also worth mentioning that the first post acquisition restructuring was to remove redundancies because in SIE/PS Studios many non-dev positions aren't in the studios themselves, but in central teams instead that work for all their teams. So even if some will continue at Bungie, most of their people in non-dev positions are either at central SIE/PS Studios or left Sony.

850 (total) - 300 (Marathon) = 550 in Destiny (including non-dev in both, and that's assuming they keep 300 after launch, which pretty likely won't the the case)

 

[LyricalShrike]

They didn't mandate via enbargo to wait until that release. They just suggested them to play it for a while post launch and wait to see these endgame features.


They didn't mandate via enbargo to wait until that update. They just suggested them to play it for a while post launch and wait to see these endgame features because it would give them a better idea of the whole concept of the game in the long term. There's absolutely nothing unethical on it.

I doubt studios would have complied if Marathon were not published by Sony. Sony's position in the market give weight to its "suggestions". No major outlet is going to refuse a request from a company controlling such a large segment of the market. I've also written the above before. You should have read further instead of quoting one message twice.

 

[calico]

Out of everything the review industry has done, all going along with this 'request' is probably the most embarrassing.

 

[clarky]

Out of everything the review industry has done, all going along with this 'request' is probably the most embarrassing.

How so?

You wouldn't get reviews on launch day either way as the game wasn't available. They weren't hiding anything as everyone got the chance to play the weekend before and decide for themselves if they liked it or not.

 

[calico]

How so?

Because professional reviewers should not need or accept input or advice from the creator of a publicly available product on the manner in which they go about reviewing the product.

It's irrelevant whether the reviews were available on release day; the correct timing for release of reviews of a publicly available product is whenever the reviewer determines they have enough experience with the product being sold to provide a review of it. If a game is not adequately feature complete at the time it is being sold, that's a problem the creator should have fixed before release, not one the review industry should go out of its way to accommodate.

They should have refused the 'request' if only for the sake of preserving the fiction that they aren't in hock to the industry. Will those outlets who went along with this be extending the same grace period to any developer who requests it in future, to give them a similar post-release opportunity to finish making the product they are already selling?

 

[RafterXL]

They didn't mandate via enbargo to wait until that update. They just suggested them to play it for a while post launch and wait to see these endgame features because it would give them a better idea of the whole concept of the game in the long term. There's absolutely nothing unethical on it.

Yeah, sure, they just "suggested". Bungie, and by extension Sony, asking reviewers to wait a month isn't a hard mandate, but it sure as hell is putting pressure on them to do so. The review industry has become way to chummy with developers, has basically become a PR arm for the gaming industry, and none of these reviewers wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

Given the relationship between developers and journalists in this industry it's 100% unethical and if this were some small, nobody developer they wouldn't have submitted to this request.

How so?

You wouldn't get reviews on launch day either way as the game wasn't available. They weren't hiding anything as everyone got the chance to play the weekend before and decide for themselves if they liked it or not.

You'd get reviews shortly after. Are we pretending this is the first game that reviewers didn't get to play until launch day? They were absolutely hiding something...the review scores. What people played the week before doesn't matter because those opinions don't go up on Metacritic.

And it worked. The reviews before the shill reviewers finally dropped their review were significantly lower than the reviews releasing now. It also had a cooling effect and completely removed a ton of reviews from the algorithm, because people stopped caring a month later and decided to not review it at all. A Bungie game has 1/3 of the reviews of Crimson Desert and has less now than CD had on launch day.

 

[yurinka]

Yeah, sure, they just "suggested". Bungie, and by extension Sony, asking reviewers to wait a month isn't a hard mandate, but it sure as hell is putting pressure on them to do so. The review industry has become way to chummy with developers, has basically become a PR arm for the gaming industry, and none of these reviewers wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

Given the relationship between developers and journalists in this industry it's 100% unethical and if this were some small, nobody developer they wouldn't have submitted to this request.

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.

 

[clarky]

Yeah, sure, they just "suggested". Bungie, and by extension Sony, asking reviewers to wait a month isn't a hard mandate, but it sure as hell is putting pressure on them to do so. The review industry has become way to chummy with developers, has basically become a PR arm for the gaming industry, and none of these reviewers wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

Given the relationship between developers and journalists in this industry it's 100% unethical and if this were some small, nobody developer they wouldn't have submitted to this request.

You'd get reviews shortly after. Are we pretending this is the first game that reviewers didn't get to play until launch day? They were absolutely hiding something...the review scores. What people played the week before doesn't matter because those opinions don't go up on Metacritic.

And it worked. The reviews before the shill reviewers finally dropped their review were significantly lower than the reviews releasing now. It also had a cooling effect and completely removed a ton of reviews from the algorithm, because people stopped caring a month later and decided to not review it at all. A Bungie game has 1/3 of the reviews of Crimson Desert and has less now than CD had on launch day.

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.

 

[calico]

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.

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

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.

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

 

[yurinka]

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

As I said they just did a suggestion to wait to play the endgame features (Cryo map and the ranked mode, which were going to be added later) before making the reviews.

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

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

They're just bloggers, streamers and youtubers reviewing videogames.

In games where it's possible because the full experience can be played properly before launch, to give them a free code is a win/win for both sides: the publisher gets some visibility at launch, the reviewers have some views when the people is more hyped to get impressions about a game and have some time to do it, and players get impressions when they want.

Live service games are different, because the experience isn't just a fixed experience of a 20h story. It's to play an evolving game across many weeks/months/years with a long grind during which the game gets new stuff and keeps getting tweaked, while the community discusses secrets, strategies and solve puzzles together. So unless it's a first impressions article or a first version of a review in progress, it's better to wait some time after launch if they want to make a proper review.

Because the proper live experience can't be replicated in closed doors with a very limited pool of players, and there's nothing wrong with integrity there.

If something, lack of integrity would be to review a live service game without having played it many hours across many weeks and having seen how it evolves, what the community keeps discovering and how its endgame is.

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.

Yes, the game is great.

It isn't just the reviews of the media who waited to properly play it who say it. It's also the user reviews of the players who played it in Steam or PS. Despite not GOTY winner level, the scores are very good, particularly considering it's a hardcore PvP game. Meaning, it isn't for everybody as would be the case for the average mainstream game.

 

[clarky]

Because professional reviewers should not need or accept input or advice from the creator of a publicly available product on the manner in which they go about reviewing the product.

It's irrelevant whether the reviews were available on release day; the correct timing for release of reviews of a publicly available product is whenever the reviewer determines they have enough experience with the product being sold to provide a review of it. If a game is not adequately feature complete at the time it is being sold, that's a problem the creator should have fixed before release, not one the review industry should go out of its way to accommodate.

They should have refused the 'request' if only for the sake of preserving the fiction that they aren't in hock to the industry. Will those outlets who went along with this be extending the same grace period to any developer who requests it in future, to give them a similar post-release opportunity to finish making the product they are already selling?

I understand what you are saying. I do find the request also a little odd. However as a counter point the product was finished but its a live service title and as such not all the content is available day one for obvious reasons. They could have release all the content day one but nobody would have been able to play it due to lack of gear and then it would have been data mined and spoiled for the community. To give a complete picture then all the content that you are paying for should be considered when reviewing the product.

If they only reviewed the early game then the review isn't complete and should have been labelled as such. Obviously I agree that this decision should be left up to the reviewer.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because professional reviewers should not need or accept input or advice from the creator of a publicly available product on the manner in which they go about reviewing the product.

The request to delay reviews was reasonable. The problem was that Cryo didn't meaningfully change the experience for the vast majority of players.