Support NeoGAF

[Fess]

Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?

Previews are marketing tools used by publishers to help increasing hype for games near the release. Same goes for reviews. If reviews was for customers we would see them update after each patch, what we see on Metacritic is the unpatched review code, not all that relevant these days when almost all games get post-launch patches.

 

[DaciaJC]

Huh, I thought IGN's professional responsibility is to accurately inform its readers. I haven't read the article nor played Suicide Squad, but if they called out a shitty game for indeed being a shitty game, then it sounds like they performed their job correctly.

 

[Big Chungus]

will play once its $10

 

[amigastar]

When is the review embargo lifted? I have a bad feeling about this game.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

Can't believe WB is going so far, just to let people buy the game blindly on day 1

I just realized that the pre-order "early access" means that the game becomes non-refundable days before the actual release date.

 

[DAHGAMING]

Game looks shit, but ign are some pink/blue hair mob that probably try thumbing in there muahroom cocks into the PS5 disktray nowdays, so fuck them all.

 

[Evolved1]

Sour grapes by WB. Also, pretty fucked up reading this thread… the message here is about publishers thinking they can buy reviews and hype coverage (they usually can) but when you're about to drop a so-obvious-it's-visible-from-space-piece of shit like SS, IGN does have some responsibility to let their readers know a giant pile of shit is coming their way at premium prices. IGN does something good for once, you wouldn't know it from this thread.

 

[yurinka]

Nothing wrong here. IGN is free to say what they want. And the publisher is free to send or not codes to some people.

 

[Killer8]

I'm not really going to congratulate IGN because it's just an example of the exception proving the rule. If being negative is enough for a publisher to withdraw review codes, I wonder just how many other review codes, trips to PR events and other cushy dibs that these sites get is all just contingent on them being cozy with the publishers.

I have a feeling the game journalism industry would collapse if it was an iota more critical. They're not exactly going to routinely rate games poorly if it means getting blacklisted. I suspect this game was just so shit that IGN couldn't reasonably preview it without saying so.

 

[newtypepilot]

so WB won't pay IGN for a positive "preview" and is now going on a hissy fit?

 

[Synless]

Anyone who watched that Joker reveal didn't need IGN to see how shit this game is going to be.

 

[ungalo]

I think it's weird that people accuse these sites of being paid shills and when they show they aren't it's unprofessional lol

They are shills to their audience, not the publishers, they are paid to say what people want to hear.

 

[ManaByte]

I just realized that the pre-order "early access" means that the game becomes non-refundable days before the actual release date.

It's refundable on Steam and Xbox.

 

[hinch7]

Would actually benefit WB and the game since IGN's presumably low scoring, will have an impact on MC/OC at launch. Not looking good either way.

Not that we need previews to see the game is just, meh.

 

[rabbity-thing]

Well, if no one else is going to post it....

 

[ReBurn]

Would actually benefit WB and the game since IGN's presumably low scoring, will have an impact on MC/OC at launch. Not looking good either way.

Not that we need previews to see the game is just, meh.

Whether it's at launch or after launch the meta score is going to be the same in the end. If IGN would rate the game lower because (god forbid) they had to buy a copy, then the system is broken anyway.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

With or without code the game will see this in the near future

 

[ManaByte]

Whether it's at launch or after launch the meta score is going to be the same in the end. If IGN would rate the game lower because (god forbid) they had to buy a copy, then the system is broken anyway.

IGN's preview was a review. Probably why WB is doing this.

 

[Shut0wen]

Personally i think the title of the article was abit much, especially when the person previewing the said its combat was shit but he seen potional near the end of the preview, i mean the preview is fine but the title was pretty click baity, though even if the game is shit (which is obvious it will be)

 

[ReBurn]

IGN's preview was a review. Probably why WB is doing this.

It absolutely was a review. I don't blame WB for skipping them. IGN values clickbait more than journalism these days, anyway.

 

[StereoVsn]

Stop adding a moral "framing" to what is essentially a business transaction between 2 businesses. WB doesn't owe IGN review codes that drive revenue to IGN. Going to Twitter to create a media spectacle is both unprofessional and malicious.

If WB specifically black flagged IGN because of a negative preview, it's the usual Publishwr bullshit. No, IGN isn't owed codes. However, they (for once) did their job and informed their readers that the game is coming in isn't good.

WTF is this WB defense force in this thread? Publication and journalists (yes, yes, IGN isn't amazing I know) do their job, Publisher retaliates and folks are jumping to take the bullet for utter trash that's WB?!

 

[Shut0wen]

"Previews … neutral"

No, previews should be indicative of the final product and any issues should be highlighted, and trash should be called out.

If they're withholding review codes across the board to mitigate the inevitable bad reviews, then that just shows how important it is that previews are honest.

Tbf theres alot of previews that hype up a game that ends up getting medicore scores not saying its ign as a whole but you could tell the person previewing the game went in there hating it before they even played it

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

If WB specifically black flagged IGN because of a negative preview, it's the usual Publishwr bullshit. No, IGN isn't owed codes. However, they (for once) did their job and informed their readers that the game is coming in isn't good.

WTF is this WB defense force in this thread? Publication and journalists (yes, yes, IGN isn't amazing I know) do their job, Publisher retaliates and folks are jumping to take the bullet for utter trash that's WB?!

IGN produced content their readers wanted to click on - Suicide Squad bad.

 

[ManaByte]

If WB specifically black flagged IGN because of a negative preview, it's the usual Publishwr bullshit. No, IGN isn't owed codes. However, they (for once) did their job and informed their readers that the game is coming in isn't good.

WTF is this WB defense force in this thread? Publication and journalists (yes, yes, IGN isn't amazing I know) do their job, Publisher retaliates and folks are jumping to take the bullet for utter trash that's WB?!

IGN posted a negative review labeled as a preview.

 

[StereoVsn]

IGN produced content their readers wanted to click on - Suicide Squad bad.

They produced content based on the preview they saw of the game. WTF are they supposed to do, lie to their readers?

You all are complaining that gaming publications aren't tough enough. And now they did their job so complaint is what, they are negative?

 

[StereoVsn]

IGN posted a negative review labeled as a preview.

It was not a review. They saw the game and gameplay, and they posted their impressions. In no way was that full review.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

WTF are they supposed to do, lie to their readers?

Why stop now?

 

[knguyen]

I don't get why people have to throw so much shit to this game. Just don't buy it and done. There's a lot of effort put on these projects by people who have no agency in WB's corporate decisions.

If the hate can stop GAAS game from becoming popular then I think It's worth it.

 

[StereoVsn]

Why stop now?

This is insane. They are actually doing their job AND you are blaming them for it?

Yeah, no, f WB and for once IGN is doing the right thing.

 

[ManaByte]

It was not a review. They saw the game and gameplay, and they posted their impressions. In no way was that full review.

They gave a verdict on the game in the headline.

They played stupid clickbait games and won no prize.

 

[StereoVsn]

They gave a verdict on the game in the headline.

They played stupid clickbait games and won no prize.

If the game is bad enough don't see why they shouldn't say it. If I wanted to get a game I would want folks doing previews to give me a heads up.

This is especially important with these stupid GaaS games and early access where you can't return the game afterwards.

 

[CamHostage]

IGN should do honest previews all of the time don't pick and choose what publishers to be nice to

....How many previews do you think you have read in the last 5-10 years?

...How many previews did you read in the PS2 or PS3 era?

Publishers are not sending out code like they used to. Online games, there's often a beta that journalists can get on, but otherwise publishers have mostly closed off access. Pubs can go straight to the public with trailers and dev featurettes, and now they can even make their own "previews" through their community managers. And E3 and most trade shows have closed up or are minimal in presence/access, so there's no demand for builds to be made available at those either. And security is so tight that nobody can see WIP titles even under NDA because there are just too many contacts involved. The reason journalists have turned into pundits is partially because the in-development access has stopped.

The only previews you can read these days are either beta impressions or trailer breakdowns or near-launch demo events (where the game is basically done but they still only give access to like the first hour. ) And even select preview cases, publishers only give access when they're pretty confident they will get good response to what they show.

Back when I used to write about game, we should get burned PS1 CDs of games still with the developer's voice temp-tracked in the audio. These days, I'm not even sure journalists use debugs? (They can be sent redemption codes for direct access, but that too is uncommon despite it being easier than mailing discs.) The business has changed.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

This is insane. They are actually doing their job AND you are blaming them for it?

Yeah, no, f WB and for once IGN is doing the right thing.

IGN has done nothing but shill for these massive publishers for the last 25 years.

They shat on SS because their readership has rabies for that kind of content. The sooner IGN goes belly up the better.

 

[Portugeezer]

I mean, IGN gave it a shitty preview.

Nothing was stopping them from giving a shitty review for launch, but no, this is the current game to shit on.

But yeah, either way, bad practice by WB.

 

[StereoVsn]

IGN has done nothing but shill for these massive publishers for the last 25 years.

They shat on SS because their readership has rabies for that kind of content. The sooner IGN goes belly up the better.

Again, they did their job. As far as shilling, they tend to be better then most but of course they are paid off.

SS was a terrible idea with a terrible execution and I welcome any and all negative feedback on them.

 

[ManaByte]

Again, they did their job.

IGN's policy on previews was always to be neutral and save the verdict for the review.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

In this era, Warner Bros. has what it deserves in karma.

It has been a very bad entertainment company, mocking and making parodies of whoever didn't like it... I hope it becomes totally bankrupt.

 

[CamHostage]

They gave a verdict on the game in the headline.

They played stupid clickbait games and won no prize.

Dude, you used to be a journalist, why are you against this preview?

IGN knew that being denied review code was a possibility, and Tom Marks' tweet may be a little overcooked (given that supposedly no sites are getting review code, although I bet code will be sent to influencers, which would make sense why Marks is ticked that they're trying to just hold back Metacritic numbers.) They got their clicks from the headline, and now they're paying backtaxes in delayed review traffic. But if the choice is between sugarcoating the preview to get a final build or telling the truth as soon as you know it, I don't see the sugar route being sensible, and if you're a working, honest journalist, I don't see there being a choice. (A little even-handed optimism is one thing, but if gameplay makes you miserable then that's your context.)

IGN's policy on previews was always to be neutral and save the verdict for the review.

I don't think there was ever a public policy on previews (there nothing about it on the policy page now. )

IGN Entertainment

Timely, comprehensive, and reliable

corp.ign.com

And as far as that being as EIC recommemdation, that's not been the "policy" anywhere i worked. Previewers should always convey to the audience what is good about the product (as in what play features might appeal to them, because that's why people are reading the preview, for a feel of what the game is all about and whether they should continue to follow it or consider a preorder) and be light or skip on technical criticism of products that are far from done. (I'm sure you remember though E3 previews that would still say stuff like, "If they can iron out the choppy framerate of the E3 build, then this could be good...", or "We encountered a few bugs but hourly those will be squashed before release..." , stuff like that. ) A preview for a game rarely goes hard like this. But most previews aren't for games 7 years in development and with a launch four weeks away from the first allowed hands-on.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Again, they did their job. As far as shilling, they tend to be better then most but of course they are paid off.

SS was a terrible idea with a terrible execution and I welcome any and all negative feedback on them.

Their job is literally to promote. You seem to be falling under the banner of "If their stories align with my tastes then I will support them".

Men of principle where have though gone?

 

[ManaByte]

that's not been the "policy" anywhere i worked

It was the rule at IGN for previews. Neutral tone. No verdict until the review.

 

[bender]

It was the rule at IGN for previews. Neutral tone. No verdict until the review.

That's generally the etiquette we see from larger publications and I don't see that is a bad thing.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Hilarious that there are people defending WB in here..

Maybe we need to investigate how many shills are on this site.

 

[LordCBH]

Maybe WB shouldn't have forced a once fantastic studio to make a piece of shit GAAS title that nobody fucking asked for.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?

Pretty much. But it depends how pissy the game maker is.

Typically, previews for any game (which IGN trashed it in a preview weeks ago) are rosy. It's very rare a game preview will be negative as the game site or individual YT guy doing it has to say the game is great or else the game maker wont give him preview codes, any kind of early access info or for the bigger sites that do more access to developer Q&A and such.

Often times the most critical a preview will be (you got to see it and get the hint) is when the site will say something doesn't work or looks off, but they add in that bullshit line like... "But I'm sure it'll be fixed at launch!". No they dont. And there's chance that issue will be just as shit at launch as it is in the preview. But if they add that one liner, it makes gives gamers optimism it'll be good and surely gets the publisher off their back.

You got to be in their good graces or else you'll be flagged a rebel who might trash the game. in that case it's better for the game maker's PR and marketing department to skip that site. Focus on the rest who will suck cock for free games and souvenirs to put on their shelf.

It looks like the games industry went this route when the internet came about. You can tell as most games hit that 6-10 review scale when back in the day it wasnt like this so much. You'd get a lot more review mags giving games terrible scores like 3/10 or PC Gamer giving games a 15%/100. Now you basically never see that. Even terrible games now somehow squeak out a 65/100.

 

[balls of snow]

Launch day is gonna be fun watching twitch.

 

[Hot5pur]

Makes sense, WB knows IGN will absolutely trash the game, and if they can delay their review and have other reviews go up that won't be quite as bad maybe that'll suck enough people in to buy it.
It really sucks that the game might flop hard, I can't believe this is where the legendary rocksteady ended up. Batman Arkaham Asylum was a pivotal point in gaming IMO, not quite Halo or Half Life level, but it's up there.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Makes sense, WB knows IGN will absolutely trash the game, and if they can delay their review and have other reviews go up that won't be quite as bad maybe that'll suck enough people in to buy it.
It really sucks that the game might flop hard, I can't believe this is where the legendary rocksteady ended up. Batman Arkaham Asylum was a pivotal point in gaming IMO, not quite Halo or Half Life level, but it's up there.

Yup.

Best thing for gamers who dont want to be disapppinted is just wait for all the reviews to come out and decide after 1-2 days. By then there will be like 40 reviews and tons of YT videos to sift through.

Problem is the games industry has so many amped up gamers buying day one or preordering (even digitally when supply doesn't run out like a disc!) that game makers can still kind of control the narrative because they know a lot of gamers dont want to wait and will buy right away. And the longer out IGN's shitty coming 4/10 score gets dragged out the better. And so does all the other sites WB's marketing team has blacklisted.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Makes sense, WB knows IGN will absolutely trash the game, and if they can delay their review and have other reviews go up that won't be quite as bad maybe that'll suck enough people in to buy it.
It really sucks that the game might flop hard, I can't believe this is where the legendary rocksteady ended up. Batman Arkaham Asylum was a pivotal point in gaming IMO, not quite Halo or Half Life level, but it's up there.

They want advertising to spread faster than word of mouth so that enough casuals will buy the game on a lark.

 

[bender]

It looks like the games industry went this route when the internet came about. You can tell as most games hit that 6-10 review scale when back in the day it wasnt like this so much. You'd get a lot more review mags giving games terrible scores like 3/10 or PC Gamer giving games a 15%/100. Now you basically never see that. Even terrible games now somehow squeak out a 65/100.

Just to push back a little with a theory I have, but I do think the average quality of games has improved as we have commonly used standards for controls, cameras, etc. Further, with the explosion of indie develop and the barrier of entry to get games published on platforms being really low, we have more releases than ever. I think that's why we see so many ~7 rated games as there is little need to cover terrible titles and it's now impossible to cover every release for any given platform, most things are going to naturally fit in that range.

 

[BacklashWave534]

To be fair WB should be giving their codes to the actual gamers on Youtube, Twitch, etc. instead of the activists pretending to be games urinalists on IGN.