It doesn't really affect me since I can't remember the last time I bought a game on release but what's your feelings on this? Bethesda's so brutally corporate and I couldn't help but just kinda laugh at the announcement. God, that press release is pure gold.

Anyway, I'm very interested to see how this all pans out. Seems like a tactic a lot of publishers will surely adopt and benefit from.

Bethesda's new review policy press release from 10/25/16:

At Bethesda, we value media reviews.

We read them. We watch them. We try to learn from them when they offer critique. And we understand their value to our players.

Earlier this year we released DOOM. We sent review copies to arrive the day before launch, which led to speculation about the quality of the game. Since then DOOM has emerged as a critical and commercial hit, and is now one of the highest-rated shooters of the past few years.

With the upcoming launches of Skyrim Special Edition and Dishonored 2, we will continue our policy of sending media review copies one day before release. While we will continue to work with media, streamers, and YouTubers to support their coverage – both before and after release – we want everyone, including those in the media, to experience our games at the same time.

We also understand that some of you want to read reviews before you make your decision, and if that’s the case we encourage you to wait for your favorite reviewers to share their thoughts.

Skyrim Special Edition releases globally on October 28 for PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC. Dishonored 2 releases globally on November 11 for PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC.

LINK

I want to add that yes, the press release is about review copies of games but it has, more broadly, an impact on coverage of games near release.

what new policy?

I don't even care about reviews. Games "journalism" is entertainment to me.

Their reasons are stupid but it doesn't bother me. I don't look at reviews for purchasing advice.

Sucks for IGN and Gamespot. Pretty meh for everyone else.

I was always surprised that publishers sent out review copies anyway since bad reviews have a much larger impact than good reviews.

It feels scummy, especially considering reviews were the sole reason I bought Doom. I had never bought a Bethesda game before but hearing the glowing remarks from the GB team and beyond made me really want to check it out.

@phorn: As well as paying money for Bethesda games, starting this January, you will also require a Bethesda License - this means that you have proven yourself worthy as a gamer to play one of Bethesda's games. In order to obtain a Bethesda License, first you need to prove that you can at least beat the shareware episode of Doom on Hurt Me Plenty or higher.

IGN milks game releases for all they're worth anyways, if anything this helps them when they release a review in progress, an update to the review in progress, and then a final update with their overall score, all the while also putting up pointless updates like "How to access the main menu" and "All the easter eggs we've found so far"; doubly so if it's like the Skyrim re-release and they can just regurgitate old articles for less effort more profit.

@clockworktony: yah but that was just positive word of mouth that got you interested rather than a single written review which is exactly what they're basing this whole decision on. That and of course the fact that this will finally let them break free from relying on websites for coverage. At the end of the day your typical GameSpot needs them much more than they need GameSpot. Bethesda will release their game either way and they're big enough that people will flock towards any news about their releases. So a media site can huff and puff all they want but ultimately they're the ones shooting themselves in the foot by not running stories for Bethesda releases. Jeff talks about how Bethesda doesn't respect his audience enough to send review copies early and let them do their job and how in this case he would turn down press visits from them wanting to show the game off early because that's too much of a one way street. Personally I'd much rather see early footage than care about a release day review - so in this weird tug of war it's the consumer that ultimately loses out the most as both sides of the conflict try to throw their weight around.

Damn dude, that was a frustratingly vague opening post.

Anyways, seems kinda shitty that they're gonna continue not sending early review copies out to games outlets, but I don't really see it as some huge assault on consumers or anything. It's your money, and whether you wanna wait to make an informed purchase or not is on you. As for the outlets, I'm sure most already have experience dealing with this.

It is a consumer unfriendly policicy that has become the new norm over the last few years. It reinforces my reluctance to buy games at release.

I can't help but feel if ea, ubisoft or activision has released that statement the internet would've imploded. I actually think, with the exception of new Vegas, their modern rpgs are crap and the Id games are short enough that reviews will hit in no time so it doesn't really affect me.

It's a lame, anti-consumer move, but it's also not necessarily something that directly affects me. I usually wait for reviews on stuff regardless.

It's bullshit.

It also doesn't affect me. I don't care about reviews in general anymore and there is so much information in video and written format about any AAA game on day of release that I don't think reviews in the traditional sense matter much anymore.

@liquiddragon: please include a source in your OP

Just gotta be real careful about what games you buy from Bethesda from now on. Or really any publisher because this will become more and more commonplace. Businesses have a right to do whatever they want to maximize their profits. But consumers also have the right to be smart about what they buy. Game publishers do not have your best interests at heart so it's simple - don't preorder games. Wait until the verdict is out. Don't get burned by corporate marketing. If you preorder a game and it turns out not to be what was promised, you're a sucker and you have nobody to blame but yourself.

I think overall game reviews don't carry nearly the same weight they did even a few years ago.

I know personally I get much more information about most games from watching a quick look or a let's play. Words can only say so much.

I rarely pre-order games anyway and now I will never pre-order a Betheseda one and will probably avoid buying them in their release window. I did get Doom, but that was after it had been out a month and marked down 40%.

Besides given the way they acquired the Prey franchise and some other kinda scummy things they've done, I'm not crazy about supporting them. They are just as bad EA etc at their worst.

They did a bad.

As a reviewer, I'm fuming. Triggering some kind of day one arms race for coverage is damaging to your own product. What they've done is try to incentivise pre-orders by saying, "Hey, get it. You're getting it anyway. We know what we're doing 'cos Doom was great. Play it now. Oh, it's patching? Errr..."

Just don't pre order shit. Wait a day and watch some steams if you're undecided.

I'll probably continue to play Bethesda games but the change in policy probably changes when exactly I'll pick them up and at what price. I haven't preordered anything in years and I won't pick anything up until either one of my close friends gives a game a recommendation, I've read a few professional reviews post-launch, or something to that effect. I think it's a really crappy policy by Bethesda and shows a lack of confidence in their creative teams which is absurd given the quality of the games they've put out at times and the strong sales they've seen even on titles that were somewhat lacking at release like (Fallout 4).

I'm also realistic in thinking this is a policy change that isn't really aimed at a lot of gamers like us. It's about the bigger broader market who only have a passing relationship with professional reviews.

I think it sucks and it makes me think less of the company.

Will further highlight the stupidity of pre-ordering games and then complaining when the game is bad/not what the advertising said it was so I'm not too worried.

@shindig: Doom's sale weren't great it had a decent first week then held well in the second after the reivews and word of mouth, reviews almost never have an impact on sales especially before release.

Doom 2016 late reviews

Wolfenstein: The New Order early reviews

It is anti-consumer, but its not their job to be pro consumer. Its helpful to make consumers happy, only so far as it increases sales, so until this hurts their bottom line they will continue and other companies will follow.

If people don't like this you fight this by not buying any game that does not drop to review until it is fully reviewed...even if you don't read reviews. Bethesda doesn't want sales to trickle for three days until the game is reviewed, so if the buying public does that, Bethesda will revers course very fast. Buy the games you will buy, just delay the purchase until three days after launch.

Demand what you buy have some sort of 'independent testing', because THAT is the business function of a review. We acknowledge the entertainment function reviews provide, but we need some who can tell us, "That shit be broken". Whether critics or reviewers think of themselves as 'independent testers' that is a bit of their function.

In the bad old days, each game has exactly three screen 2" x 2.5" shots; they were ALL bull-shots often just painted. Imagine a world without reviews at all. Screen shots were small to hide how ugly and simpel gamers were, there were no reviews, and most games were churned out in months. It was a dark age of gaming..."a world of savagery, super-science, and sorcery!"

@monkeyking1969: I don't really see how it anti-consumer if a publisher thinks their game gonna be bad they never send out review copies anyway, also most people don't read reviews as evident by Titanfall 2 performance.

It's a video game, not life saving insulin. There's nothing wrong with waiting a few days to find out if it's good or not.

I think it's shitty and also hypocritical cause they're still gonna expect press outlets to do preview stuff for them.

If you're going to go out of your way to stop press people from reviewing the game prior to release, then pull out of E3 (which is attended mainly by the same people who they're screwing with this policy) and out of the entire preview cycle that you do with gaming outlets and only deal with Youtubers; aka people you can literally buy off to give you good press no matter how broken your game is. If you don't, then you're basically confirming what everyone already suspects that the reason you're doing this whole thing is because you can't handle people rightfully criticising you for shipping broken games, which is shady as fuck.

I dunno, I think I'm biased because I think Bethesda is a terrible company that basically cannot ship a game that isn't broken to save their lives. Like I think the only games they've shipped in the past couple of years that weren't broken in some way are Doom and Wolfenstein, both of which were not developed by Bethesda Studios.

I think it's a shitty move by Bethesda but I almost never use reviews to inform my purchases so it doesn't really matter to me.

Interesting how a lot of people are basically saying "this is shitty but I don't really read reviews anyway" which seems to be kind of at odds with one another. I'm the last person to back Bethesda in any fight as I haven't found any of their games especially engaging for the past several years (I think they turned Fallout into something terrible). In fact I think the press has given a lot of their titles a free pass, early review copies or not, as their products release in very buggy states yet still somehow receive high scores because "it's Bethesda they'll patch it later!" Whats the point of early reviews if the press is going to just overlook this stuff like they've done in the past? Whats the point of early reviews when press play multiplayer matches in very secular conditions and then upon world wide release the servers and matchmaking get completely busted up? Whats the point of having a single person review a game these days? One person putting forth their views on a title for millions of disparate people out there with completely divergent tastes and points of view?

I get why everyone is instantly gravitating towards this notion that Bethesda is doing something wrong here but honestly, it is probably for the best. Even if GB decides to opt out of any early coverage visits because of some moral high ground (and they usually pass on those irregardless) there are plenty of other outlets that will be more than happy to run any sort of early coverage so it's not big loss. These days seeing a game being played for 5-10 minutes is multitudes more helpful than reading the best written review or critique which is already coming from a biased source, one that you might not agree with. I don't need to read Jeff's upcoming Infinite Warfare review to know that he still thinks zombies are a bad addition and they should take it out and do something different with that dev time. I much rather watch Jeff play the game for 20 minutes and see that the campaign is great and that the multiplayer is what it has always been. I appreciate the crews thoughts on games from a purely entertainment based point of view, but it would be a terrrrrible idea to base my own purchasing decisions on them. Which is why not getting early review copies changes very little in this modern era of games coverage where people gravitate towards streams for facts and written work for entertainment.

As janky and broken as their games tend to be i would never buy one without hearing someones opinion first. Not releasing the game early usually means it is bad, they had a terrible beta with doom so were scared the game woulf suck. Even though it didn't(single player), thats still not a good sign. Even if people dont read* reviews, scores still matter to the masses from what i can see. You gotta remember this isnt Bethesda anymore these are the same people claiming to own vr, just another arrogant shady move.

At least there is steam refund around though

@humanity: I dont think what Bethesda is doing is wrong but their reasoning is pretty dumb. I agree though that watching a game being played tells me way more than a review. I have no issues with GB no longer wanting to cover pre-release stuff for Bethesda but I think thats a little misguided. Jeff said he doesn't want them taking advantage of their audience for free marketing but imo that video Jason put up of Dishonored, even though it was basically a vertical slice, is way more informative than a review. An interview with Harvey Smith or Todd Howard would be way more interesting than a review. GB is already way too inconsistent about what they review and when those reviews go up that it would be a bummer if they just didn't cover any Bethesda stuff pre-release. I enjoy definitely enjoy reading their reviews(that NMS review was better than the game lol) but I wonder how many of us actually use them to influence what games we buy when their Quick Looks and Unfinished videos already do a much better job of that.

They have every right to do this but it is sleazy as hell and dishonest. People have pointed it out plenty of times already but they can't say they want "reviewers and fans to experience the game at the same time" (which is a ridiculous statement in and of itself) and then proceed to send streamers early copies of the game for them to play on Twitch.

@mems1224: oh yah the whole reasoning is just an elaborate way of talking around the fact that they don't want to be beholden to press anymore.

"We also understand that some of you want to read reviews before you make your decision, and if that’s the case we encourage you to wait for your favorite reviewers to share their thoughts."

First, reviews = video and text reviews, quick looks, streams, let's plays, podcasts, forums and so on.
For me - as a consumer - they just add a delay to the whole process, but only a slight one since I rarely pre-order games anyway, or get them day one. I have been fine waiting a couple of days to learn more about a released game and this won't effect that strategy too much, if at all. No Man's Sky for example, it "got" bad real fast first after the release.

I totally get why some game journalists are pissed about it though.

I can perfectly understand why they are doing it. It makes perfect business sense.

On the other hand I am incredibly turned off by their blatant lying in that post. No respect for utter bullshit like that. If you're going to do it, at least have the goddamn nerve to be honest about it.

Indifferent. Like the guys said, it seems a long time coming. Bethesda decided they no longer need traditional media's endorsement to sell to consumers on Day 1.

Good on them.

There was always a tenuous relationship between the publishers and the press. Bethesda were just the first to publicly figure out that they do not need the press, and the press is scrambling because it is still a model that is mostly based around "getting the coverage out first."

For someone who doesn't have a lot of time to game, new job & new puppy, any reviews/GB staff impressions mean more and more to me. Knowing so much change was on the way helped reinforce my no-preorder policy since disposable money and free time considerations were going to change drastically. I can kind of only spend time on stuff I already like/know I will like, or stuff I have to check out from the GB community/duders at large.

For the people who dismiss reviews entirely:

Just where do you get your opinions from?

@shindig: Company track record and how much a given concept appeals to me. Part of the fun is going in blind.

Occasionally, I am disappointed, but to be fair, I've never been more disappointed in a game than with Dragon Age II, and I bought that based on reviews.

I don't pre-order games and, more recently, do not purchase games day of release. I stopped preordering a long time ago for all the reasons we normally talk about. However, I stopped buying day of release for a number of reasons:

• (Almost) Every game comes with a day one patch which changes significant content
• Most games come with broken or unplayable multiplayer
  • Servers issues being the highest problem
• General UI and bug fixes are usually (hopefully) put out the first month
• Waiting often means the game is bundled with the DLC

While the recent Bethesda news is not surprising it does not change the content that I find most valuable: Giant Bomb playing the game in the closest environment to what I'll play it in. Nothing the publishers do will compare to someone objectively booting up a game and playing it without any marketing spin - they'll never do that.

So the news is complete bullshit but shouldn't change why I visit Giant Bomb one bit.

I've never trusted any video game review site, excluding Giant Bomb, and even then I'm weary whenever I see Brad's constant five stars or Dan after hearing him say, "I would eat a treasonous bald eagle. I would eat the Benedict Arnold of bald Eagles." I'm not that bothered that "professionals" can't give me their opinon. I'll just make my own one up or hear the buzz from the internet and stay the hell away.

Makes sense business wise. Terrible consumer facing wise but nice to see they were honest about it.

I'll wait for the releases for a lot more of their releases that's for sure especially when they're actually developing the game and not just publishing aka Dishonored 2 this Friday (can't wait!!!).