Oh wow. It's cool they realised that review exposure is a huge positive. It's a shame a few games last year ate shit because of such a stupid choice.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bethesda backtracks on its controversial review policy
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
Seriously. Imagine putting out a statement like this and actually fucking saying "hurr maybe people will actually talk about our games in reviews instead of our review policy now :)"
It's so passive aggressive and childish. The games industry is a real joke so often
Eh, hard to praise them for failing to fuck over consumers and having to return to the status quo instead. Regardless, it's a good outcome.
I still can't believe Bethesda released pretty much across the board fantastic games for two years and thought withholding reviews from consumers until the game was out was somehow a good idea. That's shit you pull when you're shipping a bad game and you don't want people to know how bad it is. Not when you're shipping some of the best FPSes on the market.
I still can't believe Bethesda released pretty much across the board fantastic games for two years and thought withholding reviews from consumers until the game was out was somehow a good idea. That's shit you pull when you're shipping a bad game and you don't want people to know how bad it is. Not when you're shipping some of the best FPSes on the market.
True that it's probably a more archaic model of the hype/release cycle and that sales et al probably play a bigger role.
It would have been interesting to see how their traditional singleplayer output would do with this heel-turn on policy, and maybe we will in the next year.
Here's the thread. They were very coy about details, but were adamant that they're treating it as a service game and were looking into the details of how to implement MTs in it.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ra...layer-but-will-have-a-social-component.61349/
I guess it's a good thing I wasn't really hyped for it in the first place.
If I had to guess, I'd say leaking a game 2 years before it's ready to be shown without there being anything worth criticizing about its development (meaning it was only done for clicks and money) is probably something that angered Bethesda.
Just what I think.
I could see it being necessary to the review if a reviewer has to explain to the readers why the review is late.
"Let's have reviewers and consumers gain access to our games on the same day so that there is no prior consumer decision in case our game sucks. That way, we can sell bad games in droves before people catch on!"
"I love it. Let's do it!"
Later...
"Damn it, no one is talking about the games! Just the review policy! Let's reverse the policy."
"I agree. Come to think about, we don't even make bad games to begin with."
"I love it. Let's do it!"
Later...
"Damn it, no one is talking about the games! Just the review policy! Let's reverse the policy."
"I agree. Come to think about, we don't even make bad games to begin with."
So pretty much Pete is saying sorry our BS anticonsumer policy didn't work out, its because journalists kept talking about it so I guess we'll go back to sending out review copies early. Haha what a windbag
Thank goodness. This policy did nothing but hurt their solid single-player games. People want to read reviews for titles like that ahead of time.
I think what's funnier is him saying that these games all were great, and people loved them, but the reviews were marred by our shitty review policy. They were their own worst enemy.
I mean, its not really that complicated, is it? Kotaku, you especially, often leaks new details about games the Devs/Publishers aren't ready to release to the public yet. Bethesda doesn't want that.
1+1=3.
Why wouldn't it be acceptable? You basically blew the lid off of Fallout 4 by publishing those internal leaks. Bethesda, Ubisoft, whomever has no obligation to work with you whatsoever.
Freedom of the press means you are free from legal repercussions for what you publish (obviously outside of slander and libel) but it also means that companies like Bethesda are free to not engage with you if they are angry with what you've published.
Last edited:
No. Fucking. Shit.
How in the world did they not see this coming a mile away, and how in the world did it then take them two years to realize this? Bethesda's really showing their incompetence this past week.
It didn't take two years in fairness. They sent out early review copies for all their games after Prey.
Supporting Bethesda is hella frustrating because I love most of their games but hate everything around them. Hines can go kick rocks with his dumb comments.
I don't think reviews inform opinions/advise sales nearly as much as you think they do.
Streaming/influencer coverage is probably for more related to this change of stance.
Erm, this change of stance has nothing to do with streamers or influences. They never stopped giving keys early to those.
It has everything to do with this as we are talking about the press. Kotaku is completely legally within their right to publish leaks. 100%. Journalists are afforded that protection, protection from legal repercussions for publishing stolen secrets, the Pentagon Papers solidified this.
Now that this is established as fact, that Kotaku was completely within their rights to publish the Fallout 4 leaks, Bethesda is also completely within their rights to not engage or cooperate with Kotaku ever again. It is a completely accepatable, and frankly expected, outcome. They aren't trying to bribe Kotaku or force them to publish puff pieces, they are simply ignoring them.
Not sure about this, but Bethesda being selective which media outlet to send review copies to, doesn't that mean that Bethesda sort of bribes all of the other media outlets with early review copies? Like, not as a contractual obligation, but as an obligation in practice, outlets have to not publish articles that could negatively impact Bethesda, in order to keep receiving review copies.
This has been happening a lot with Bethesda and other American companies that recognize how important PR is to the overall image of the company. Sales have been down for them, they've had a few fiascos recently, why not just try to simplify game launches? It makes perfect sense.
Every company for every media is selective to whom they give early access to give reviews. Movie studios don't invite tabloids to press screenings.
The outlets are under no obligation to write reviews even if they receive review copies, the publishers are under no obligation to give out review copies to begin with.
After that policy contributed to bad performance and shelving of some good series, sure. Perhaps they shouldn't have had that inane policy in the first place.
It's also ridiculous that they are holding that grudge against Kotaku 5 years later.
While what you are saying is true, it ignores what the intention of the blacklisting is. To warn off any other publications from publishing similar info as well as punishing kotaku.
You are right that Bethesda are within their rights to do that but it is still very much in an effort to limit press freedoms.
In the same way that a politician refusing to speak to certain elements of the press is entirely motivated by self image, so are Bethesda's actions here.
The fact they were willing to hobble all official press outlets (by making all their reviews publish after launch day) and essentially try to funnel their fans into over enthusiastic youtubers is proof enough that they are aiming to game the system. That deserves criticism, please don't try and downplay it as simple sour grapes.
Someone will still bring this up in a review. "After Bethesda's previous review policy comes to and end we here's my review on Doom Eternal" or whatever.
While everything you're saying is technically correct, Bethesda has set the precedent that if you're not going to play by their rules and act as their marketing team, they're going to punish you. That's wild. If I were interviewing Pete Hines and he had done this to another outlet, you'd better believe I'd be probing him about it.
Yup I think this was a big part of it too
This backtrack was seen coming since day 1. I'm surprised it took too long tbh.
It was a weird policy and I'm sure no one will be in a rush to replicate it.
As for Kotaku, if Bethesda feels like they are too loose with leaks then they aren't obliged to give them access to their products.
Public sector/private sector
Politicians are accountable to voters.
Isn't there a difference between refusing to be an extension of their marketing team (which is an extremely limited way of looking at reviews and relations with publishers) by not accepting early review copies or advertisement deals, and leaking private documents in order to leak a game 2 years before it's ready to be shown?
I mean, that's Bethesda as fuck. Remember the paid mods stuff? It was the same thing, blaming people abusing the system instead of owning up to the fact that their implementation was bad and they had no real intent to curate anything about it until the shit hit the fan.
Call me a sucker, but I'm willing to give Bethesda the benefit of the doubt. Just because they've had a good track record of single player games this generation.
The news and reviews section of a news outlet should be treated as different channels. It should be expected in quality journalism that their news will sometimes hinder the image or marketing efforts of a company.
It's not like Kotaku broke an NDA/embargo on a review copy, or intentionally tanked review scores, or anything close to that. Nothing they've done has been dishonest or disingenuous.
The blacklisting is a punishment for daring to do actual reporting on information they received. It is, perhaps, logical that Bethesda would want to punish them for that, but it's not reasonable or defensible that they actually did it.
I personally think if something has leaked then the blame should be placed on their own doorstep, (unless they trusted someone at Kotaku with the news and that trust was broken). But from Bethesda's position, if they feel the leak damaged their brand, the game or the marketing then they have made a decision to punish the outlet they feel is responsible. I can understand that to an extent. It's petty, and I imagine it will be rescinded as Kotaku grows in influence.
Good. It was a stupid policy that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. Now unblock Kotaku while you're at it, Pete.
I know and I completely agree. However, it's possible to NOT be an extension of a publisher's marketing team by fairly critiquing a game in reviews (sometimes even tearing it to shreds) while still avoiding leaking private documents and game details years in advance.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Jason did anything wrong. He's within his rights to do that. But Bethesda are also within their right to blacklist an outlet that revealed intimate details about their upcoming project years in advance, forcing them to spend important time in PR to damage control.
