Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Honestly who cares, we all know the game’s not gonna do well. IGN is more of a fan site now than a journo site, anyway.
How so?Unprofessional of IGN so they get treated unprofessionally by WB.
I don’t understand. A preview is not marketing. Its an opinion on the game.I agree with you, but the hit piece they put out was unprofessional and they could have shit on the game when they put the actual review out
Yep. Fuck them. They’ve been trash for years.Unprofessional of IGN so they get treated unprofessionally by WB.
I don’t understand. A preview is not marketing. Its an opinion on the game.
I see a preview as playing the first few hours and providing an opinion on the game thus far. If I wanted marketing, I’d watch a trailer.Exactly. You don't understand. The REVIEW is the opinion. A preview IS pretty much marketing.
I see a preview as playing the first few hours and providing an opinion on the game thus far.
What Hogwarts payback? IGN was one of the few outlets who properly reviewed it.Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, gaming journos are not pros anymore. They are mostly shills / casual gamers / ideological activists expelled from culture sections. They are so bad that is difficult to ascertain when they are acting in bad faith.
However, for this particular case, WB is wrong unless they are getting some payback from Hogwarts Legacy. IMO an outlet should be vetoed only when:
- They have a track record of purposefully lowering the scores of a publisher/developer: the case of Stevivor with Sony.
- They have manifested personal opposition towards the game/developers: Hogwarts Legacy boycott case.
I doubt Suicide Squad falls into either of these categories. Anyway, everyone knows the game is gonna suck, no matter MC.
Yes, WB expected a glowing preview to push sales for this upcoming $10 bargain bin game.They gave a verdict on the game in the headline.
They played stupid clickbait games and won no prize.
Basically WB didn’t like IGN not hyping up their upcoming dumpster fire for preorders.
Aha, sure, they objected to the verdict. At least IGN ket the customers know that the title is likely to be a like if crap and they shouldn’t pre-order.No, they objected to IGN using a preview event to post a verdict on the game in the headline for a preview.
Now IGN is going to wonder why they don't get review code for the Hogwarts sequel and cry on Twitter like Kotaku did when Nintendo blacklisted them from TOTK due to them telling people to pirate Metroid Dread.
Website advertising is drying up and Google's SEO has killed search, so sites have to result to sensationalist tactics to get their clicks and ad revenue.As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.
Again, IGN was one of the very few outlets to put out a proper Hogwarts review. Of all the review sites you are barking up the wrong tree.Honestly, I think the game isn't going to be that bad. I mean, getting past the relentless bad publicity, worst case scenario is that its just going to be disappointingly ordinary for a RockSteady game.
It seems to me that this is one of those cases where people are so hung up on what the game isn't, they aren't giving it any credit for what it is.
I'm not defending the whole GaaS approach, and I'd absolutely be way more interested in another Batman/Arkham release, but I doubt the game is an unmitigated disaster after all this time.
As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.
Previews are often just pre-order drivers and publishers use the access to early material as a stick to game bloggers who do not play ball. Previews should call a spade a spade…Previews are generally neutral, they always wait til review to slate a product. Previews are opinion and subject to change. Reviews are a finished product. Im not backing IGN or WB they're both dicks in the situation lmao
Again, IGN was one of the very few outlets to put out a proper Hogwarts review. Of all the review sites you are barking up the wrong tree.
I won't argue here, because I don't read their previews or reviews (minus some rare exceptions). I was referring to game journalists and gaming sites more like in general. They shouldn't be afraid to talk negatively in the previews if the game truly sucks and if they feel it's unfixable with future patches (unlike the technical issues & bugs you've mentioned which can always be resolved).Ok let me give you a recent example. The final preview code for Guardians of the Galaxy was absolutely not as polished as the final released game. It was missing RT, had a lot of framerate issues, some pretty annoying bugs, etc. It was feature complete and enough to review the game coming right off of a preview, but all of the issues in the preview code are fixed in the final gold master review code and day 1 patch. Square even provided the patch information to reviewers to let them know that stuff was already fixed. What IGN did was equal to saying "Fuck you, I'm reviewing the preview code. Eat shit." and posting it with a sensationalist clickbait headline to farm rage clicks and "engagement".
Neither deserve defending..Never thought I'd see people defending WB over this. Was IGN supposed to lie in the preview to make them feel better?
You and other WB defenders are basically this. I don’t particularly care about IGN and usually don’t read their stuff, but on good them to actually be straight with their audience.Neither deserve defending..
Ign is hot shit and an embarrassment to journalism (like all games media) and WB are a big corporation and aren't anyone's friends.
Anyone in here "defending" either side have a serious personal agenda and to me that's the most embarrassing part of this thread.
The adult response is, boo hoo IGN and either buy or don't buy the game when it releases, and that's it.
I think they have gotten a bit better. I was pleasantly surprised by a fair review of Hogwarts for example.If only they could be this neutral and professional all the time.
Agreed. How many times have been cried foul when previews were either glowingly positive or hell, just left out the less-than positive parts, only to find out the game has major issues??You and other WB defenders are basically this. I don’t particularly care about IGN and usually don’t read their stuff, but on good them to actually be straight with their audience.
Lol... is it hard to read?You and other WB defenders are basically this. I don’t particularly care about IGN and usually don’t read their stuff, but on good them to actually be straight with their audience.
I don’t have any agenda except for strongly disliking anytime large corpos they to pull a fast one and get their pre-orders in before most people realize game has issues.Lol... is it hard to read?
The fact you think I'm either team says alot about your personal agenda
Fun factI don’t have any agenda except for strongly disliking anytime large corpos they to pull a fast one and get their pre-orders in before most people realize game has issues.
I.E. Avengers, Cyberpunk, Anthem and so on.
Honestly, I think the game isn't going to be that bad. I mean, getting past the relentless bad publicity, worst case scenario is that its just going to be disappointingly ordinary for a RockSteady game.
It seems to me that this is one of those cases where people are so hung up on what the game isn't, they aren't giving it any credit for what it is.
I'm not defending the whole GaaS approach, and I'd absolutely be way more interested in another Batman/Arkham release, but I doubt the game is an unmitigated disaster after all this time.
As to WB sticking it to IGN, well, if you consider what happened with Hogwarts Legacy, should they be concerned with what reviewers say about their games or if they cover them at all?
That's a consequence the activist journo's don't seem to have considered; they've just handed the AAA industry an example proving that if the IP is big enough critical reception and coverage is utterly irrelevant.
Seriously. It almost feels like bad faith, like a PR recovery campaign lmao. I can't fathom anyone who has nothing to gain from it defending this. There was nothing "unprofessional" about it.Never thought I'd see people defending WB over this. Was IGN supposed to lie in the preview to make them feel better?
IGN: "The Flash is too fast!"
WB: "Uh, you're too stupid to review this game."
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.
They're part of the hype machine.Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?
Fair point. And also, it's Destin, so I'm not at all shocked that he got the ire of the developer. Dude gets the ire of everyone.Again, no they didn't. A verdict has ALWAYS been meant to be saved for the Review. Destin put the verdict in the preview headline. It was a review based on a preview event and not the entire game.
They didn’t get code. They went to a preview event and reviewed that.IMO if a game code gets sent to a news outlet then it should be fair game for critique.
Was there an nda or any agreement made that should preclude any impressions written?They didn’t get code. They went to a preview event and reviewed that.
Giving an honest impression is now considered a "hit piece"I agree with you, but the hit piece they put out was unprofessional and they could have shit on the game when they put the actual review out
The implication of a preview event is that it isn’t used to review the game before release.Was there an nda or any agreement made that should preclude any impressions written?
Ok so they don’t actually get people to sign an nda or agreement saying they won’t post impressions. Wonder why not then? Would solve this type of issue.The implication of a preview event is that it isn’t used to review the game before release.