Assassin's Creed and the Gaming Press.

Yes, this topic gets me in trouble regularly, but I'm quite moth-like at times, and it's such a pretty flame...

As we all know, Ubisoft rushed Assassin's Creed: Unity out the door in a pathetic state, which anyone with a lick of sense could tell was going to happen by the fact that embargoes were in place until 12 hours post release, most likely in order to make sure no pre-orders got canceled.

Now, unlike most, I don't particularly harbor any ill-will at Ubisoft. At least no more than usual. I don't buy their games until I've seen media on them, simply because they, along with EA, have proven incapable of consistent quality. However, while their business practices are deplorable, they're not unexpected.

Unfortunately, the games press' compliance is also not unexpected. We can go on and on and on about how Ubisoft was scummy for issuing the embargo, and of course they were. However, a corporation is, at the end of the day, looking out for itself beyond anyone else. In theory, the games press should be on the side of its readership, or at least beholden to the most basic principles of honesty. Instead, the industry agreed to this embargo. While Ubi might deny review copies, embargoes aren't legally enforceable without contract. Therefore, the problem here isn't Ubisoft being jackasses, but with the games media being completely on the take.

Here we are, presented with yet another example of how the games press isn't looking after the best interests of its readers, but instead playing along with the industry standard of appeasing the publishers in exchange for access. This isn't a good thing, and seeing reviews only pop up after millions of dollars have been collected on a travesty such as this only serves to support the notion that there are no ethical standards in the press.

So, what should the press do? Don't sign the damned contract! If you're denied access, say so. Put it on the front cover that Ubisoft refused to work with you because you wouldn't play along with its marketing team. At least everyone will understand ahead of time when the review comes late because you had to buy the game yourselves. Show a bit of backbone and stand up to someone at least once!

Of course, that will never happen. With a press that's obsessed with keeping the flow of easy access and free goodies going, we're never going to see a games outlet say "No, we're going to do right by the reader." Indeed, we're the last thing on the gaming press' mind, at least until the time comes to paint us all as misogynist babies.

Thankfully, I had the good sense to stop buying AC games a long time ago, but it irks me that a press that's supposed to stop people from being hoodwinked like this was instead helping by agreeing to the embargo and putting nothing at all on their front pages until Ubi said it was OK to go ahead.

At least it wasn't an indie game by a woman, I suppose. The press would be ripping into anyone daring to criticize it then...

Many publications have already stated they won't comply with post release embargoes anymore. Ubisoft has even said they will change their embargo policy. Sucks reviewers signed the embargo this time but I bet a large majority of people excited enough to buy the game before noon were going to buy it anyway, regardless of score.

Refusing an embargo is not only damaging on your short term readership (readers might say they don't want you to cooperate with Ubisoft and sign the embargo, but the reality is that the first review to get posted is the one that will probably get the more readership) but might also damage your long-term relationship with the publisher. Right now, Ubisoft is in a corner because the game received middling review scores across the board, but if it wasn't the case, any website criticizing Ubisoft for their embargo might get a lot of shit. You might say that the publication should be honest and stand against Ubisoft, but it's way harder than it might seem and can be incredibly damaging to them.

And holy moly that last sentence is passive-agressive in a really sleazy way.

Seriously, we're smart people here, we can be doubtful of a publication enough to ignore its opinion if we consider it stupid. Read the websites you think are honest, ignore the others.

You won't get any more copies of any Ubisoft games if you put on your front cover that Ubisoft won't let you post anything about their games until 12 hours after release.

Someone could have pre-ordered a copy, picked it up at midnight, and played it for a little while and then posted that the frame rate is total bollocks, but who's going to do that? People who write about games already play crazy amounts of them, going to a midnight launch just to post some impressions of a game you might not be a fan of sounds like a little much to ask of them.

EDIT: Also, that last sentence is unnecessary, unrelated to anything you said, and is rather inflammatory. These forums have recently calmed down enough for me to start posting a lot again, can you get rid of it for the sake of possible peaceful discussion?

Wat.

My only issue is the problem was top-down with set-in-stone deadlines, and the victims of this poor reception are going to be from the bottom-up. People who did everything just fine in the time they had are going to be made to fall on their sword, because someone has to "answer" I guess and its not gonna be the guy who said "the posters are already up no time for QA even though half the people below me insist on it"

At least it wasn't an indie game by a woman, I suppose. The press would be ripping into anyone daring to criticize it then...

I don't understand why this part is necessary.

I guess he misses being able to harass women without the general public reacting.

I don't see how this proves that "the games media being completely on the take". A lot of the reviews on Assassin's Creed Unity weren't especially glowing, mostly 7s (and Alex even gave it 2/5). If the games media collectively said "No, we are not going to sign your embargo, we will buy the game at launch the same as everyone else" that wouldn't do anything to stop the flow of pre-orders.

As for your criticism of outlets not being honest, sites like IGN put out an article explaining when to expect their Unity review and why they can't post anything about it. Not sure what other sites also did this, but this is what I found after two minutes of searching.

Also, I believe Alex mentioned on Bombin' the AM that he had not realised that the embargo was only to be lifted twelve hours post-release and had he known beforehand he wouldn't have agreed to it. I don't know how many media outlets knew this, but I'm guessing probably not everyone.

Ugh. Not breaking an embargo equals being "on the take"? Give me a break with this stuff.

Actually it's about something something...

And this is how to get your topic instantly closed on the forums. Don't do this again.