Bethesda & Game Reviews

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.

[italiangamer]

This smells like shit, I can see other publishers following this route. I am looking at you Ubisoft and EA.

[Cindy-rella]

Sounds good to me. A lot of sheep like to disregard good games based on someone elses biased opinion even when the reviewer is being overly critical of certain things other games get passes on. Reviews are good to know more about games but i see them doing more arm than good.

[Vegamyster]

So what if a game has performance issues & bugs ect not shown in the previews aka Mafia 3? The people your talking about are the vocal minority and don't represent the millions of consumers out there.

[Kreisen]

Critics give practically anything 9/10 now. The only ones who have anything bad to say about any game are gamers.

[Majin-vegeta]

@Vega Wow that's a real tough one I mean it's not like people can wait for reviews....oh wait.

[Vegamyster]

@Majin-vegeta

You're right, you can, but wouldn't you rather have them before the game comes out instead of a few days or weeks after the game comes out?

[The 10th Rider]

@Kreisen,

There's literally only like ten non-remake games this gen that have above a 90 average on metacritic.

[gbsrnctaln]

@kriesen

Riiiiiiiiiiiighhhhtttt....

Like "critics" dont put out negative clickbait reviews...

[Utalkin2me]

I think if they want to play like this. When the time comes to review their game, all the game reviewers should not review it period and give it no publicity at all.

[vickers500]

@vegamyster

Then they can wait for the damned game to come out and wait on the reviews. Nobody is forced to buy the game day one.

[Vegamyster]

@vickers500

Never implied people were forced to buy it day one, just pointing out this in no way benefits us the consumer wanting to know more about the game leading up to launch.

[morganfell]

I applaud this move by Bethesda and I do hope other companies follow suit. It is time these sites with zero standards and narrow viewpoints that vary willy nilly from day to day lose as much influence over our pastime as possible. There is no accountability at all for these companies. Screaming idiots with no reign can destroy good games and prop up bad ones. And if you do not like this Bethesda method, if you need someone to tell you what is good and what is bad then you are free to wait.

EDIT: @bruce,

People like to be informed? By what? Some snot nosed opinionated little basement dwelling dweeb with absolutely no grading standards for their reviews? Just an opinion? You can go to any gaming forum and find one and often better informed. There are almost always copies that are sold early. Here is a novel idea, spend your money wisely. If gamers were more reticent and chose better (reviews do not assist this) then companies would be forced to do more for your buck. It is that simple. It is an illusion that game reviews are of a real benefit. Often reviewers overlook real issues either by way of intention or incompetence. The times they did point something out many gamers already knew.

[fiveby9]

I prefer watching game streams to gauge how I might like the game. Reviews have some value but they are limited and man y of them are handing out 8, 9 , or higher to please advertisers on their site. Best idea is to not buy games on day 1 and wait a couple days / weeks to see how the game really plays. I am guilty of buying NMS on day one. And now it sits there collecting dust. Lesson learned (again).

[DragonKnight]

Bethesda gets endless praise for putting out broken games, so your comment is very ironic Cindy-rella.

Watch the Jimquisition on this practice.

https://youtu.be/gUkn5PhEqn...

@morganfell: You applaud anti-consumerism? You understand that devs like Bethesda are not doing this to go after the sites you're talking about right? They're doing it to maintain false impressions about their games so as not to risk sales. That's not a good thing.

[morganfell]

How is this anti-consumerism? Are you not allowed to read or watch a review before you buy? Do you lack self control to the point you cannot contain yourself? Are you about to burst when a new game launches so that your money flies into the hands of anyone nearby? These so called reviewers are free to damn good games and promote trash - all with absolutely zero accountability.

Perhaps you should just give your money to someone else and let them decide for you. That is in effect what you are doing if you require reviews to purchase. And I mean reviews that have no written standards, written by people with whom you do not game or hang out, written by people whose motivations you do not know, reviews by people that often fail to hit the best or worse real issues in titles, that is what you need?

[DragonKnight]

@morganfell: Never once have a ever let a review decide for me, but if you don't think this is anti-consumerism, then firstly you need to see this...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Secondly, it's anti-consumer because these devs and publishers are trying to hide their games' flaws for as long as possible. This is a marked lack of confidence in the quality of their work and they do not want that negativity spread. They want people to spend money on inferior products. Again, Aliens Colonial Marines, and Assassin's Creed Unity. These are the games you are supporting when you praise this practice.

[Vegamyster]

@morganfell

You should never base your purchasing decision on what a reviewer says but what exactly do you find wrong with knowing more about a game prior to launch? The main reason i don't like this is specifically due to potential issues that the game has, yes not every reviewer is equally good or calls out issues that a game has but when you have 50+ reviewers you'll find a portion that does and those are the ones I'm interested in.

[Utalkin2me]

Well this sucks for people that buys the games. Makes no difference to me cause i do not purchase their games anymore and haven't for a while.

[Utalkin2me]

Well my opinion thinks otherwise. Not only that i have played some of their games at friends house and such, and im not missing a single thing. The only thing that kind of bothers me is the new doom.

[Paelmoon]

I never pre order games anymore, and this will just mean i wait a week or two longer.

[joab777]

I guess we should react by waiting to buy the games then. Though we pretty much know what we are getting with Bethesda.

[DarthZoolu]

I think that's the point we know exactly what we're going to get with Bethesda and we love it they don't need to change anything they don't need to push for innovation because the people that are spending money on their games by the truck loads didn't ask for any of that just give us what we ask for!

[DragonKnight]

Speak for yourself. Bethesda have A LOT to change. For starters, releasing games that are actually playable and not lines of code held together by duct tape and hope.

[joab777]

I didn't say that they don't need change. I am saying that we KNOW what we are getting. So, we choose to buy or we don't. They are like Apple and so many others that rest on their laurels and only take giant leaps when they have to. It's amazing that Skyrim looks way better than F4 and it's a last gen game, but I'm not really complaining b/c F4 is definitely worth $60.

It's bad business for them to send out thousands of copies, when early reviews can only hurt them. That said, if this strategy effects the bottom line, they will have to rethink it. I'm almost certain it isn't being done to hide shit.

[Muzikguy]

I actually think this is a great idea and should've been done a long time ago. Leave it to the outlets that ruin it for everyone else, but I want to see this continue. Yeah it would be great to have a review ready before the game drops, but if you're already following it you probably know much already. Just wait a little bit and see what's said. If you like it, go get it. I feel like many reviews are fake these days anyway

[NXSwitch]

None are fake, they just tell the truth like it is.

[Muzikguy]

No todd, that's a lie. They've obviously fooled you and you just proved my point

[DragonKnight]

You understand that following a game only means you're seeing what the devs want you to see right?

No one expected Aliens Colonial Marines or AC Unity to be the dumpster fires they were, and people followed both games. This is not by any means a good thing.

[Muzikguy]

Same with reviews too. They, many times, only show or say what they want you to see and hear

[DragonKnight]

@muzikguy: That's the entire point of a review though. You like something in the game, you show it off, you don't like something in a game, you show why it's a problem. What else would you propose?

[Muzikguy]

The point is they're biased too. If something is in the game that could essentially ruin it for others, the reviewer may never even talk about it. Same with those previews of games like Aliens Coloniel Marines. Not many reviews are "fair and balanced" where they cover all aspects. People should decide for themselves and not rely solely on reviews. I've had far too many instances in where I'll like a game but hwnreciews were off-putting. Then you'll have reviews that praise a trash game. It goes both ways between reviews and previews

[lxeasy]

I don't want EA and Ubisoft doing this but I do trust Bethesda more than both of them.

[DragonDDark]

Freaking bullshit

[Princess_Pilfer]

Add another one to the list.

Bethesda, till you change this I don't buy your stuff. You refuse to let people give me the real information about your game in an attempt to manufacture low information consumers and then trick them into buying your stuff based exclisively on pre-release hype while actively punishing people who do as you "recommend" and wait for reviews with pre-order nonsense, I refuse to give you my money. Not just until I have information about the game from someone other than you, because as long as this is a net-profit for you then you don't care when people buy your stuff, so I have to do my part to make it a net loss and force the change.

[cleft5]

You know what, Game Reviewers only have themselves to blame for this new policy. The reality is if Reviewers still held the credibility they use to have with the gaming community than developers could not pull this crap. It would be a death sentence for them. Yet, how quick are gamers to say that this reviewer or review site isnt credible. That stuff does eventually take its toll and now a major publisher is saying fuck it, we dont need reviewers anymore.

[Princess_Pilfer]

Uh, no. WTF are you even talking about?

1: What does it matter if some people think a reviewer is or isn't trustworthy, based on Bethesda's stated reason or preventing leaks, as long as Bethesda knows they won't leak things? All Bethesda has to do is only give keys to reviewers they already know are credible (the angry joes, IGNs and total biscuits.)

2: Game reviewers are not a monolith. Total biscuit isn't responsible for the actions of sleazebag#77685 who decides to break the embargo on youtube, it's on BETHESDA to decide who does and doesn't get codes and all they have to do is restrict it to more established critics so leaks are easily tracked down and people who do it denied access.

It's anti-consumer BS in the form of a deliberate attempt to manufactuer low information consumers, and it's BETHESDA (the people who actually made the decision) who is to blame.

[ninsigma]

IGN is not credible.

[game4funz]

Are you so easily tricked??
Do you honestly care about other consumers?

You're a real hero aren't you

[pumpactionpimp]

Why don't they control who gets review copies, instead? Only send review copies to known or trusted bigger name sites? You blame reviewers, yet companies send a review copy to any idiot with a site, or youtube channel.

They're happy to receive all the free publicity when they do it. But aren't happy when there's negative feedback. Seems they just want it both ways.

How about instead, they select random gamers, and send them a review copy. So long as they make a short video, or article describing their time with the game?

[rainslacker]

@Forum

You don't feel that people would just accuse Bethesda, or other publishers if they do as you suggest, of only sending out review copies to those they feel would give favorable reviews?

There really is no easy answer for this, and ultimately, I do feel the media as a whole has too many bad apples which make things like this come up.

The best solution has been the early review copy, with an embargo so they all release on the same day, either early or day one. I know people gripe about it, but now, with Bethesda games, all we get is incomplete reviews, or IGN's more recent trend of reviews in progress.

I don't care if Bethesda itself wants to take this route, it's their decision, and it's probably not going to affect them much since so many people don't really wait for reviews anyways. Truthfully, most people know if they'll get something long before the reviews, and the reviews themselves are to gain attention from those who are unaware of the game. That's just how it is nowadays. Reviews are nothing more than marketing tools for the publishers, because of consumer spending habits, and the media itself screwing things up for years to promote themselves instead of the games.

It sucks for the honest reviewers who try to serve their readers, but that's the way it is, and Bethesda isn't the first company to enact such policies.

[2pacalypsenow]

Has there been any game that withheld reviews until after release that have turned out to be great?

[Alucardx03]

Doom, which turned out to be incredible.

[jonivtec]

Solid game i approve.People should just not wait for a completly new skyrim and wont be disapoint.

[ShadowNextGen]

Civilization VI is a good example of that.

[MasterCornholio]

Trying to hide the bugs right?

[Hoffmann]

Wow. Times changed a lot.

You younger people won't believe it, but back in the nineties it was the STANDARD that gaming magazines reviewed games that were released AFTER (Often 2-4 weeks later) the magazines were published.

Today..you have all these review embargos instead and Bethesda is for sure not the only game publisher that doesnt give out early review copies.

But hey..instead you get buggy launch versions..tons of dlc..season passes with unknown content and microtransactions.

[NarooN]

I still have at least 200 of my old gaming mags. It was really awesome when they were relevant, as I remember reviewers being WAY more honest and transparent back then. No BS most of the time. Plus as you said, the reviews were often well in advance of the game's retail release, which was great for either building more hype or destroying it altogether, lol

[NarooN]

@thunder

Where the hell did you get that from? Learn how to read properly, lol. Nobody said games were bug/glitch-free in the 90's. All games have bugs and glitches, some may be hard/nigh-impossible to trigger unless the game itself is super-simple design-wise with little room for error. In the 90's and even early-to-mid 00's, games pretty much NEVER shipped in the horribly broken states that "AAA" games are releasing in nowadays. And it's not like it's due to game complexity because gameplay has barely evolved since then, it's just prettier graphics most of the time.

[MrsNesbitt]

Back in our day!! :D

[DragonKnight]

No they weren't reviewed after. Do you have any idea how print media works? The reviews only appeared to be released after. Print media reviewers received advanced copies of the game too. In fact when the transition was occurring between print media and the net, print media always received early copies first, and way before net media as the timing was much more difficult for print media to put out a review and required more time.

[UCForce]

Yup, I never trust Bethesda to be honest.

[-Foxtrot]

They should be sent out 2 weeks in advanced and be allowed to post the review after a week if they so wish. It means people who have pre ordered, especially expensive collectors editions, have the chance to cancel.

[Hoffmann]

That would be fair to Flair, but today's game industry uses every type of shenanigans to make as much bucks as possible. And todays game industry is grown up and not in the wild nineties anymore.

[crazychris4124]

and thats why they are stopping them. Dont want anybody canceling pre orders when they find out game is broken or bad.

[Red_Renegade]

people could just not be stupid and wait for the reviews. nobody forcing them to pick it up day 1.

[The 10th Rider]

Except they're literally trying to force people to preorder by locking content behind preorder bonuses.

[eldingo]

Thats a fucking horrible precedent to set bethesda DOOM was the exception not the rule of a games quality despite it not getting review copies sent out what the fuck are you thinking!!??

[Majin-vegeta]

Ughhj their product they can do as they please.

[eldingo]

And just as they can do that i can criticize them for setting a fucking atrocious precedent for players looking to inform themselves on a game before release my first post might have some hyperbole in it but that doesn't change this decision of theirs from being terrible for the industry and gamers as a whole along with being fucking retarded.

[JamesBroski]

I lost so much respect for Bethesda. They went from being the best to among the worst.

[MatrixxGT]

I can think of way worse than Bethesda. I've enjoyed their games. Maybe I don't bitch and cry about every silly thing that isn't perfect.

I am for no early reviews, maybe people will stop pre-ordering games off pretty trailers, hype tweets, and PR. I stopped pre ordering games years ago. I don't feel like I've missed a damn thing, in fact I feel less rushed to finish my current games before starting the next new thing.

[JamesBroski]

With that attitude, we would be paying for mods right now.

If you have confidence in your product, early reviews can only do good.

[Yo Mama]

“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.”

Yeah ok. That would happen, ummm, all of about once before Bethesda's board members and stock holders would flip the F out from seeing low sales figures over their first big weekend and reverse that decision so fast it would make Todd Howard's head spin..

[rainslacker]

They know that most people won't really wait. Most people don't. Those that do, will wait it out, and they'll still get the money for it.

It's not much risk to them.

If more people waited for reviews, then this policy wouldn't actually have been instated.

But nowadays, reviewers are becoming harder to trust. While I feel quite a lot of them do try to give honest reviews, there are those that kind of ruin the reputation of all....and some of them are high profile reviews.

In this case, Bethesda seems to be making a blanket policy to keep things equitable for everyone, but I doubt they're concerned about sales that much.

The only real pitfall I see in this policy is that those who do wait for reviews will have to wait it out, and the bigger chance that reviews get rushed to try and be first. Embargoes can be beneficial because it gives time for reviewers to play the game, and levels the playing field so they can't try to rush rush reviews out. Many people complain about day one embargoes, but they serve a purpose, and that isn't always just to try and hide poor games.

[Matology]

This is good. Makes it better that everyone who is in journalism hasn't got any advantage over one another with trying to bang out an early review for hits.

[Alucardx03]

Actually, it's the exact opposite of that. If games are sent out prior to release, it means that outlets are subject to review embargoes, meaning they can't publish a review until the publisher stipulates. With this current situation, IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb, and everyone else with some journalistic credibility will be competing with Joe Blow down the street that picked up a copy at his local Wal-Mart. Joe Blow is going to rush through the game and try to publish his review before the "big guys" out there, regardless of quality, simply for the hits.

[TheColbertinator]

Why ya hatin' Joe Blow,eh?

[Matology]

In some respects yes, but at least it gives the smaller sites a chance to get a review out and it gets some coverage. The bigger boys can put want junk review they like out and still people turn up.

This in my opinion makes it fair game.

[Lennac]

And those big sites never produce shit quality reviews that obviously look rushed. Take a look at Battlefield 1 reviews (I've really enjoyed the game, to be fair) and when they discuss the single-player campaign it seems pretty obvious that they didn't play through it.

[rainslacker]

Not really. Now if they only have one day to play, they can't possibly have enough time to review a game properly. They're more likely to rush through it, make early or incomplete reviews, and try to get the review out as quickly as possible to beat others to the punch.

This is one reason review embargoes exist, to give ample play time for the reviewer. There is no way for a Bethesda game to be played in one day, a review written up and edited, and be posted on day one and have it considered a complete review.

[Red_Renegade]

that tells you who to ignore, though.

[Gamist2dot0]

So does this mean there will be a spike in disc sales and rentals for these titles?

[ONESHOTV2]

i'm so happy that steam has a refund system so keep your games to your self until launch and if i buy it and it's shi-t you should know what's coming so no problem on my side i feel a little bad for the console only gamers though becuase even if they trade in the game they bought they wont get the same amount back and even worst if they bought it digitally

[Bjorn-c-blocker]

Well, in fairness why bother? What makes reviewers special? There are too many of them, most of whom are not even good at video games. Reviews mean nothing all we need is reports on if the game is broken or not. Let people decide by themselves.

[Princess_Pilfer]

It's called consumer protection genius. Some people, in fact most people, can't really afford to throw $60 at a game that may or may not be good based on pre-release information that may or may not be accurate that may or may not give them an experience they enjoy, and pre-order culture *actively* punishes people who wait to buy the game till reviews come out if there were no review copies.

It's not about decding wether or not a game is objectively good based on somebody elses opinion, it's about seeing if a game seems like something you'd enjoy based on the experiences of people whos opinions you trust so you don't waste money on something you hate.

[Red_Renegade]

then people can wait for the reviews. you act like people can't help but buy the games before the read reviews. which is stupid, cuz you're saying people read reviews before buying. well now just wait a few days more before you buy. not that tough an idea. or maybe it is, cuz you and lots of folks don't get it, i guess.

[Princess_Pilfer]

Why do you follow me around saying stupid shit?

People are *ACTIVELY* punished for waiting for reviews by having to pay *MORE MONEY* for the SAME GAME (in the form of whatever pre-order "bonus" is attached to the game.) I already explained that in the post you're responding to.

Bethesda has set up a situation where you buy based soley on their PR (and we all know games PR is so accurate and never lies about anything) or you spend more money. It's a blatant psychological trick to pressure people into buying games without actually knowing anything about them.

[game4funz]

People can wait and should wait.

[Red_Renegade]

what's stupid about waiting for reviews before you buy? if that's what people are going on, then they should wait until the reviews come out. bonuses are stupid little things that don't really do anything special. people are idiots if they can't wait a few days cuz of an extra gun or costume. not smart if you give up their money cuz you can't wait.

[pumpactionpimp]

My solution was to wait 2 years to buy a ps4. Now I have a backlog of games to play with a ton of reviews behind them. I buy them at around $20, and take my time with them. The best part is the games that come out now, I get to see all the controversy, and hate. While I eat my popcorn, laugh at everyone, and play gta 5, fallout 4, or any of the other great games that I bought for stupid cheap.

Use your brains. Your consumers, as such don't let companies lead you around by the nose.

[joab777]

They don't have to. It can only hurt them. It's the reason CoD never had betas until recently. They only stood to lose. Rockstar is the othe company that doesn't need to.

Maybe it's because there used to be like 20 places to send them. Now there's like 10,000.

[SourtreeDing]

honestly this doesnt effect me i depend on game previews to check out the games.. reviews have been rigged since forever..
i guess it Sucks for ppl who depend on others opinions

[game4funz]

Very true. The sheep will have to look for a different Shephard.

[ElementX]

It's ok to me because there could be day one patches released that improve aspects of the game that get marked down. Gamers don't have to get games on release, they can wait for reviews.

[TechnoGoat]

Someone should of sent out an advance copy of the link, article isn't working.

[Tumaras]

The problem is that generally across the industry, the pattern we've seen is that when companies hold NDA until release and don't allow early reviews, it's usually because they know the game is going to disappoint (Mafia 3 as the most recent example of this). Bethesda games are usually very good, and Dishonored 2 looks excellent. But if they're going to take this approach then I'll happily do the same and wait until after release and thorough reviews. As it is the DIshonored 2 pre-order bonus is whopping 1 day early access, which for me means might as well wait for a few days to a week after release to ensure it's a good game.

[GoodOldWrastling14]

they just made preordering even less appealing for their games

[game4funz]

So they made you a smarter consumer?

[Master-H]

Says a lot about the faith they have in their games, or lack thereof.

[game4funz]

The opposite can be true as well. Depends on how you look at it.

[opinionated]

Not surprising. I don't trust the gaming media either.

[SovereignSnaKe]

In terms of Dishonored II, Prey and the next Wolfenstein, I have minimal worries about the games turning out to be awful. Bethesda's out-sourced developed games by MachineGames & Arkane have been wonderful. Bethesda's IN-HOUSE games like Fallout and Skyrim are the ones that should keep people up at night worrying.

[Nivekki]

No games keep me up at night worrying. The only way games keep me up at night is when I'm enjoying playing them.

[revben]

MachineGames and Arkane are damn internal studios. Bethesda GameWorks and Arkane are in the same building.

[FAT MAN GO BOOM]

Yeah that way everyone that preorders don't back out after seeing they are releasing a half assed POS that will or may work very well 3 to 6 months down the road after updates, bug hunts and server issues are dealt with.

Advanced reviews should happen. that way we can save our money on games that are released with only being half done.

[ClayRules2012]

The Force is crooked with Bethesda...

[Sm3000]

Good. I'm glad. Bring it back to the days before the Internet and everyone adds their two cents. Roll the dice when buying games like it used to be.
This may be like biting my nose off in spite of my face, but idgaf. Ppl cling to a number way too hard imo

[NotoriousWhiz]

Reviews before day one don't make much sense these days with massive day one patches. It sucks that it means consumers will have to wait for reviews instead of buying day one, but it's probably for the best.

[SUCKxITxEZ]

Or publishers could give their devs time to polish their games instead of rushing them for a deadline and the game still ends up being broken after massive day 1 patch.

[Kallisti]

Future Bethesda games to still be released full of bugs confirmed

[lociefer]

this can be in no shape or form be spinned as a pro-consumer argument, least they could do is continue their practise but keep their mouth shut. Now theyr just putting themselves in a bad situation.

[Paelmoon]

That's fine. I will just hold on to my cash for a few weeks longer until i read the delayed reviews.

My days of pre-ordering are long gone anyway.

[DeadManMMX]

I like that they actually say if it bothers you wait and be safe. Hey no argument here.

[Petebloodyonion]

1) Perhaps Bethesda is tired of all wannabee journalism asking for a free copy of the game?
2) What's the difference between this and review embargo?
3) Perhaps they wan't to make sure that content aren't leaked on Youtube?

[NecoTehSergal]

That's not a good reason at all. That's an Excuse, a damage-control statement of them saying: "Well, DOOM was good, so everything about this should be fine!" - BETHESDA DIDN'T EVEN MAKE DOOM. Id team did, who yes, Bethesda owns, but they Published the game...

This is a shit excuse made to hide behind shady practices. They're giving reviewers minimal time in order to hide the bugs and shit, meaning the first 1-6 hours could be 'refined and okay' and the rest be flawed and glitchy and not be found til After sales happen.

[ShadowWolf712]

" meaning the first 1-6 hours could be 'refined and okay' and the rest be flawed and glitchy and not be found til After sales happen."

So basically Fallout 4?

[NecoTehSergal]

Every game they've ever 'personally' made, sure and of the many many other developers who do quantity-over-quality, Ubisoft especially included.

I remember Call of Duty 4's campaign did it too. The first few hours had amazing level design, and the demo vs final retail showed a stark difference in quality, one was refined for the media, the other was rushed and piss-poor - if anyone remembers the COD4 fiasco in the visual design where it looked FAAANTASTIC, and the Demo they gave was great, it showcased a later-level that had good efffects and lighting, everything else was a MGS4-level of Brown and grey.

Same shit.

[revben]

You do not know how Zendimax works do you? Bethesda do not make Fallout 4 either!!!!

[NecoTehSergal]

Zenimax is the Mother company who OWNS Bethesda/id/MachineGames/Arkan e.... ZeniMax Media do not make games, they own companies, like Bethesda, who do. Bethesda is a subsidiary of Zenimax.

The very fact that you said Bethesda doesn't make Fallout, honestly, just makes you retarded. It even tells you in the wikipedia.... "ZeniMax Media Inc. is an American media company that develops and publishes video games through its subsidiaries ---- ZeniMax is known for being the owner of ---- Bethesda Softworks (developer and publisher of The Elder Scrolls, Fallout)"

Not only that, but what stupidity does someone have to be to not know that Bethesda makes Elder Scrolls and Fallout?

[game4funz]

Do casuals look at reviews?
Most likely not.
Do hardcore gamers look at reviews... Yes.
Do review sites/opinions affect a games success.... Yes.
Are these review sites at times click baity and nonsense.... Yes many times.

Conclusion: if anything this decision should force gamers to wait for reviews instead of pre ordering blind. To me this is good news as it might start forcing people to wait rather then pre order.

I personally don't have issue with this. Sure it can be viewed anti consumer if said consumer is stupid and pre orders. Otherwise it does not affect me in the slightest. Good on Bethesda in having the balls to do this. Getting sick of reviews being used to bash a game before release.

There are 3 types of consumers in gaming.
1. Pre orders blind and is waiting for reviews
2. Doesn't pre order because he'd rather wait and hear how it is after launch
3.pre oders because regardless of reviews he/she will purchase anyway... Example persona.

[rainslacker]

I'd say casuals are more prone to look at reviews....or metacritic...than the hardcore is. Hardcore tends to be aware of the companies, and can look at a game to know if they'll likely enjoy it or not. They're also more likely to be able to spot PR BS.

Reviews are more marketing nowadays than anything else, and there to really get those who don't pay attention to take notice. Even back in the printed magazine days, it wasn't uncommon to see a game rate highly, and then become interested in it.

[game4funz]

Perhaps. I talk to non hardcore friends about games and most of if not at all never know how the game is reviewing at all. Destiny, gears, Forza, dark souls, Skypie. .. To name a few that people I know play.

But man those magazine days where fun

[rainslacker]

That is true too. Casuals come in all forms though.

Nowadays, it's more like they just go and see a interesting box and make impulse purchases, so perhaps you are right.

I feel good reviews can garner interest though. Things like Until Dawn got a lot of interest after the reviews hit, possibly due to a lot of positive word of mouth. Some games can do well with good critical reception, and nowadays, with social media, actual players have a good way of getting the word out.

[Circuitburnout]

The comments in this thread are really funny.

[spaceb0y]

I think Dishonored 2 will be good regardless..let's see

[Artemidorus]

Most gaming websites get paid off or encouraged by getting a first look at future games in return they give a reasonable score.

Best off waiting for streamers to play it and watch from there.

[KingOfArcadia]

I've never bought a game based solely off reviews, and I've never changed my mind about buying a game because of a review. I mean, a review is really just the opinion of some random person I don't know, so I don't put much faith in them. There's no possible way I could stand to watch some random talking head on YouTube review a game for the same reason. So if Bethesda wants to have game reviews come out when their games are already in the hands of gamers, that's fine with me.

[theshredded]

Even though EA and Ubisoft are included, Skyrim is overrated AF. fallout has the unique sci fi-apocalyptic world and VATS to make uo for the raw gameplay whereas In Skyrim, it's easily beat by others.

[fluxmulder]

So basically they're ridding themselves of an uncontrollable factor that can affect first week sales. And the only thing we have to judge whether to buy their games or not is their previews and trailers. Nice, Bethesda.

[ShadowWolf712]

The Bethesda shills are out in force, as per usual.

Reminds me of the old "the glitches are left in as a joke/part of the experience!" excuses I used to hear. lol

Bottom line: this is disgustingly anti-consumer.

[Fearmonkey]

As Bethesda rarely ever releases a game that isnt good, I'll give them a bit of a pass. Ubisoft and Ea though dont need to do this as they dont have the same quality all around.

[GrimmyReaper]

Well, guess I'll just wait for reviews then. It's just not worth it. In fact, now I just wait for sales and GOTY editions and am so done with all the hype, the fake video's, the lies, the empty promises and all the bullshit.

Just sucks the industry is just getting worse every day. This is a small step, but once again, another step to the industry becoming worse and worse

[Mr-Dude]

Well, never pre-order..

[zen_hydra]

Stop pre-ordering their games. Wait until reviews have gone up before you purchase the game. If enough consumers do this, they will reverse this move.

[Clown_Syndr0me]

I was bored of Doom after a couple of days..

[Krussail]

People are going to hate me saying this, but I feel that if this doesn't bring an end to pre-order culture, then we bloody well deserve to have this done to us. Let there only be reviews at launch, and let us finally show some damn restraint and make informed decisions. We can hate on this all we want, but at the end of the day it's us who made pre-order and microtransactions a viable business practice by throwing money at these companies.

[FlameWater]

sounds like people need to take a break from gaming, this really isn't an issue

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

basically, if you're confident in your product, you should have nothing to worry about. i always wait for reviews so i can get a general idea of what a game is like, so them doing this won't effect me at all. just makes them look really shady lol not very good pr, imo.

[Gruberator]

Why are they shooting themselves in a knee? I see the shitstorm coming man.

[Kraytos]

It goes without saying that this will have zero impact on pre-order sales for Bethesda's upcoming games. All this talk of "I'm not buying their games again" is horse-shit. People who buy will continue to buy. Those who like to read reviews will continue to do so, delaying their purchase by a couple of days.

[joinsideke]

there's nothing wrong, controversial, bad, or fishy about this. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Everyone would do best to carry on with life.

[kindkinesis]

This is terrible, how can you say crap like this when you sent youtubers the game a month early. This is a massive f*** you to consumers.