Release Day Reviews Are Losing Relevance, and Single-Player Games Have the Most to Lose

The process of releasing reviews at or ahead of launch is well-established, but it may not be the best way to move the gaming industry forward

[AspiringProGenji]

Except for the part that all SP games that have released this year and last year have been well received while the GasS are the shitty games who only purpose is to make the consumer tired of grinding and make them spend money. I’m glad reviews exists to keep me informed of these stupid games. I already fell for Destiny 1 and No Man Sky with the “I don’t care about what reviewers/people say” attitude... never again

[Thundercat77]

I fell with Destiny 1 too. Once I saw how soulless the game was and that it was all about grinding, I quit.

No more of these games for me.

[rainslacker]

A single review shouldn't really influence someone. But, generally speaking, the collective review scores should give a good representation of the quality of the game overall. However, no review, collective or otherwise can determine how someone may actually feel about an individual game.

I find word of mouth a better indicator for games which don't have all that exclusive hype wrapped around it, but I've been gaming long enough to be able to watch trailers, and read a review, and have a general idea of if I'll like the game or not. Sometimes, I'm wrong, but I'll figure that out on my own.

[Hardiman]

Release a full product instead of releasing a shell and milking the shit out of it!

[Thundercat77]

Exactly. They want to get away with incomplete games and them blame the reviews!!!

[ArchangelMike]

If you expect people to she'll out $60 for your game on day 1, then it better be worth the asking price regardless of the game model - GaaS, singleplayer, multiplayer or other. The problem is not the issue of "modern reviews", the issue is the release of broken and incomplete games at the ppint of launch. It is this practice that needs to stop.

[AK91]

Are you kidding game reviews haven’t been relevant in almost a decade its all about what the games think and say about the game not the reviewers.

[notachance]

wtf? so customer has to pay $60 upfront but it's totally okay for games to release with barebone contents and not be judged because of it?

well maybe customers should also pay it after 2 years or something

[rainslacker]

That's kind of how GaaS is being used. GaaS doesn't have to be like that, but the pretty marketing term is a way to make that a reality.

[tontontam0]

Lol you did not even consider the fact that they consumer will lose something.

[Kratos_Kart2007]

No crappy games have the most to lose....

[Shikoku]

Yeah no they aren't they are just on YouTube now and people trust people like Jim sterling and angry Joe more than the established games media its just a fact.

[MasterCornholio]

Doesn’t matter if it’s GaaS or Single Player. Just make the game good.

[kayoss]

and complete. This is why i love playing Single player games. Theres a beginning, middle, and the ending.

[gunnerforlife]

You are so wrong, multiplayer games have the most to lose. How can I trust an online game from EA or Activision without a early or day one review!?

[QuePasa87]

I rarely buy games day one anymore because of big patches, games being broken, lacking content, etc. Complete editions and sales are where it's at most of the time for me

[Flewid638]

But Single Player games do the most winning.