MoH Warfighter review copies being sent on Day 1, super shady

  • 88 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by AssInAss (2400 posts) -

This is about review copies, not an embargo.

http://www.gametrailers.com/full-epi...gital-delights

Skip to 2:18.

"Just want to talk a little about our MoH: Warfighter review. Our review is going up pretty late. EA has decided not to send us copies of the game until the day it ships. If you've watched the show over the last few years, I think you know: BUYER BEWARE, maybe?

"Marcus Beer: The phrase you're looking for is dodgy as fuuuck."

They gave MoH 2010 a 8.1, so can't be some weird blacklisting thing.

Genuine mistake? Any other websites getting the same deal?

Wired and Verge have confirmed this.

#2 Posted by BeachThunder (11264 posts) -

:o This shall be interesting. I'm also surprised that this game is coming out so soon, there's been almost no hype; is anyone hyped?

#3 Posted by Talis12 (488 posts) -

gaming has enhanced my senses.. i can dodge dodgy stuff like a mofo

#4 Edited by JerichoBlyth (1044 posts) -

Sneaking onto shelves? Called it months ago - this game is going to fucking suck.

#5 Posted by PenguinDust (12414 posts) -

Well, obviously that means there is some super-secret twist that they don't want reviewers to spoil, right? Right?

#6 Posted by _Chad (957 posts) -

I don't know why it's a big deal. Everyone already knows this game is going to be shit.

#7 Posted by TheVideoHustler (406 posts) -

... I didn't even know this game was being released

#8 Posted by DharmaBum (1060 posts) -

Damn, that means there won't be much time to warn people not to buy it. Clever move, EA.

#9 Posted by AssInAss (2400 posts) -

@JerichoBlyth said:

Sneaking onto shelves? Called it months ago - this game is going to fucking suck.

lol nice one.

In the movie industry, if critics don't get screenings automatically means shit movie.

#10 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

This is coming out in 3 days? I thought it was like 3 months away.

#11 Posted by Demoskinos (13853 posts) -

@AssInAss said:

@JerichoBlyth said:

Sneaking onto shelves? Called it months ago - this game is going to fucking suck.

lol nice one.

In the movie industry, if critics don't get screenings automatically means shit movie.

No, but it sure doesn't show a whole lot of confidence from the people who are putting it out.

#12 Posted by The_Nubster (1950 posts) -

The game will be fine. It's to avoid controversy over it's real-world influences and gun manufacturer stuff for as long as possible.

#13 Posted by Demoskinos (13853 posts) -
@The_Nubster except....they already were taking ahit for linking to websites selling guns already?
#14 Posted by Bawlsz (84 posts) -

@Jack268 said:

This is coming out in 3 days? I thought it was like 3 months away.

Damn 3 days, played the MP Beta thought it was OK, but tired of modern FPS, so this doesn't interest me at all.

#15 Posted by Alexander (1720 posts) -
@Demoskinos said:

@AssInAss said:

lol nice one.

In the movie industry, if critics don't get screenings automatically means shit movie.

No, but it sure doesn't show a whole lot of confidence from the people who are putting it out.

Might not be awful, but it tends to happen when studios have reasons to think the film will be received negatively by critics.
#16 Posted by NegativeCero (2925 posts) -

I find it weird that you literally copied-pasted your post from Neogaf. But, yeah, they're sending this out to di. It's a little surprising considering how they managed to get the first one to sel.

#17 Posted by Demoskinos (13853 posts) -

All the Linkin Park in the world won't help you save this game EA.

#18 Posted by Sackmanjones (4609 posts) -

You know what? I bet this game is totally fine. It will at least be ok, nothing amazing but it will function. I actually enjoyed the previous campaign (for the 15 dollar price) and I will definitely play the second around the same price.

#19 Posted by FourWude (2261 posts) -

Piece of shit propaganda game being sneaked onto shelves for fear of critical backlash by piece of shit publisher EA. News at Ten. Morons will still buy it though. Anything with guns and a remotely real world setting gets their dicks hard. I on the other hand have vowed not to buy any EA game, and if that means missing out on Dead Space 3, then so be it.

#20 Posted by Duke (59 posts) -

Why would you boycott all EA games instead of just the bad ones. Not buying good games because they are published by a company you don't like isn't exactly sticking it to the man. Why punish for example the dead space guys for some strange vendetta?

#21 Posted by AssInAss (2400 posts) -

@NegativeCero said:

I find it weird that you literally copied-pasted your post from Neogaf. But, yeah, they're sending this out to di. It's a little surprising considering how they managed to get the first one to sel.

Is that wrong copying my own post from somewhere else? Should I add a Giant Bomb joke to make it more personal for here?

EA definitely send this out to die. They didn't have much confidence in Syndicate, and yet still gave early copies to sites.

Anyway, Kevin VanOrd from Gamespot also confirmed it. Which means no major website is getting this game to review until it comes out.

#22 Posted by aurahack (2229 posts) -

I hope it's because of some story plot twist and not because they're just sending the game off to die. :|

#23 Edited by handlas (2545 posts) -

Do you really need to have reviews of games like MoH and CoD to know whether you want to buy them or not? Unless there is something mind-blowingly original about this FPS... I kinda doubt it though.

#24 Posted by laserbolts (5309 posts) -

@FourWude said:

I on the other hand have vowed not to buy any EA game, and if that means missing out on Dead Space 3, then so be it.

This is way more moronic than enjoying games with guns in a real world setting.

#25 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4655 posts) -

@handlas said:

Do you really need to have reviews of games like MoH and CoD to know whether you want to buy them or not? Unless there is something mind-blowingly original about this FPS... I kinda doubt it though.

That is true but the thing they were pushing with MOH is the story. I was curious to hear how that turned out.

#26 Posted by believer258 (11043 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

You know what? I bet this game is totally fine. It will at least be ok, nothing amazing but it will function. I actually enjoyed the previous campaign (for the 15 dollar price) and I will definitely play the second around the same price.

Pretty much this. I liked the previous game for the 6 hour campaign, and everyone here already knows whether or not they'll like the second game. At full price? Hell no, but when it's five dollars a few months from now and I've got a weekend to kill? All right.

#27 Posted by IceColdGamer (604 posts) -

My fingers are still crossed that this one is good. I take reviews with a grain of salt because of my personal preferences towards certain titles.

#28 Posted by Jeff (3336 posts) -

The word from EA is that there is a Day 1 patch that they really want to make sure reviewers take into consideration. Whether you choose to believe that or not is, of course, up to you.

Keep in mind that they effectively did the same thing with Battlefield 3 last year.

Staff
#29 Posted by IceColdGamer (604 posts) -

@Jeff said:

The word from EA is that there is a Day 1 patch that they really want to make sure reviewers take into consideration. Whether you choose to believe that or not is, of course, up to you.

Keep in mind that they effectively did the same thing with Battlefield 3 last year.

That would also make a lot of sense. Thanks for the info Jeff.

#30 Posted by seannao (223 posts) -

The only hype I've seen for the game are:

It gives access to BF4 Beta to owners of the game

More recently:

BF3-Premium Users have been given a 50% Off Coupon for a Digital Download of MoH Warfighter that I already gave out away.

#31 Posted by Jeff (3336 posts) -

I'm personally curious to know if that patch has already gone out or not. The claim I got from EA was that the patch wouldn't go live until 12:01 on the day of release, but Xbox 360 patches typically don't propagate on that sort of schedule. Also, even though they made the same claim for Battlefield 3, that patch was out well before the game's street date.

Regardless of that, I think they're very deliberately trying to keep it out of the hands of reviewers as long as they can. Can't blame 'em. Feels like some outlets have been lined up against this game for months, mostly because of the completely shitty job EA did marketing it. Every time someone at EA opened their mouth about this game, something incredibly stupid fell out. Every partnership they announced just placed it further away from their stated objective of making a respectful military game. But hey, that's cool, because everyone loves Linkin Park, right?

It's too bad, because the game seems... well, it seems serviceable, from what I've played of it during preview events. I doubt it'll fall into some kind of Resident Evil 6 territory, anyway. But then I'm not reviewing it, because I'll be out of town.

Staff
#32 Posted by Grissefar (2843 posts) -

@Jeff said:

I'm personally curious to know if that patch has already gone out or not. The claim I got from EA was that the patch wouldn't go live until 12:01 on the day of release, but Xbox 360 patches typically don't propagate on that sort of schedule. Also, even though they made the same claim for Battlefield 3, that patch was out well before the game's street date.

Regardless of that, I think they're very deliberately trying to keep it out of the hands of reviewers as long as they can. Can't blame 'em. Feels like some outlets have been lined up against this game for months, mostly because of the completely shitty job EA did marketing it. Every time someone at EA opened their mouth about this game, something incredibly stupid fell out. Every partnership they announced just placed it further away from their stated objective of making a respectful military game. But hey, that's cool, because everyone loves Linkin Park, right?

It's too bad, because the game seems... well, it seems serviceable, from what I've played of it during preview events. I doubt it'll fall into some kind of Resident Evil 6 territory, anyway. But then I'm not reviewing it, because I'll be out of town.

Wow thanks for informing us, man.

Thankfully, there'll surely be a Shrink Wrap Tuesday of some sort.

#33 Posted by kindgineer (2485 posts) -

I don't understand why anyone cares. If you're dumb enough to not wait for a product from a publisher/developer that has failed you in the past, than you're just going to continue you on your way. I think it's safe to say that no one that this relates to is actually going to be aware of this, so they are pretty much preaching to the choir.

#34 Posted by Jimbo (9710 posts) -

I think 'super shady' is perhaps a bit strong. Not letting anybody have it is much more palatable than only letting 'friendly' reviewers have it and witholding it from 'less friendly' reviewers, in an attempt to correct the future behaviour of said reviewers. That's a practice which reviewers should really take a stand against, and have each other's backs on. It's better that the gaming public is presented with no picture at all from the press (and either make up their own minds, or wait for post-launch reviews) than to show them a picture which has been carefully manipulated by the publisher, probably without most readers even realising it happens.

There are a lot of questionable practices in how game reviews work, but not letting anybody review your game before launch doesn't seem like a particularly egregious example.

#35 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If EA had any brains what so ever they would release this 6 months after COD, why would anyone buy this when COD is like 2 weeks away. Put it out 6 months after when people are getting tired of the latest COD.

Not interested in this game anyway, can't stand games being set in real wars with real armys that are happening today, it is just really insensitive to the familys of soldiers that have died and just turn it into a fun action game.

#36 Posted by NegativeCero (2925 posts) -

@AssInAss: If it was your post over there too, then forget I said anything.

Anyway, I feel a little bad because I remember that video posted on Gamespot between one of the developers and Tom Mcshea and the guy seemed to genuinely believe in his game. That said, I know none of the developers were calling the shots that involved the gun partnership or whatever, but it must suck to put years into something for it to not work out.

#37 Posted by FourWude (2261 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

@FourWude said:

I on the other hand have vowed not to buy any EA game, and if that means missing out on Dead Space 3, then so be it.

This is way more moronic than enjoying games with guns in a real world setting.

Principles against EA as a company, as a whole. Their business practices and what they stand for is everything I despise in the videogame industry. Voting with my wallet is the only way to protest with any meaningful impact.

#38 Posted by EXTomar (4125 posts) -

Meh, for this class of game I almost don't care for the "Day 0" review. Let me know a couple of weeks down the road if it works or any major bugs pop up where playing games like this in the pristine pre-release environment tells me very little.

#39 Posted by Phatmac (5686 posts) -

Didn't ea do this for the console versions of battlefield 3?

#40 Edited by Seppli (9740 posts) -

I think MoH looks fine, both SP and MP - not a must have, but I might eventually get it at a later date.

EA thinks, rightfully so, that MoH Warfighter is a game some people will love to hate - due to its subject matter, as well as how crowded that genre is with yearly high quality releases. Just think about that Gamespot dude ranting about the game after E3, being totally brain-tarded and stubborn about it being entertaining and a wargame, and how dare they sell it as realistic. MoH kinda is like the stand-in guy critics use, to vent all the stuff they'd really want to level against CoD, without pissing of a dozens of millions of fans.

Nontheless, I would not buy it on day 1, if I hadn't played the beta and liked what I played. Since I haven't and don't have the immediate need for yet another modern military FPS game, I'll spend my bucks on Criterion's Need for Speed Most Wanted.

I predict it'll break about even. They'll manage to sell up to 2 million copies - down from 4 millions the first time around - and genre fans who buy Warfighter, will be happy with their purchase.

#41 Edited by Seppli (9740 posts) -

People love to hate on games that are borderline warprofiteering - and there's nothing borderline about it really, if we're honest.

#42 Posted by Mcfart (1425 posts) -

Whatever. It can't be worse then the first MoH (and that was even just mediocre, not terrible).

#43 Posted by Sean2206 (261 posts) -

I liked the first MoH of this reboot thing and I never really liked old MoH but the new one seemed more personal and involved and really genuinely tense at times. I'd like the second one to be good but either way I'll rent it and play through the campaign, MoH multiplayer does not interest me at all. This does seem pretty damn shady and you'd think they would want to be seen as confident in their game if they aim to stand up to Black Ops 2.

#44 Posted by Bawlsz (84 posts) -

Cod Blops 2 and Halo 4 are going to be out a few weeks later, so it doesn't seem like a good release date, or maybe it's a game to tie shooter fans over until Halo 4 and Blops 2 actually get released.

The actual game doesn't seem bad, would probably buy it, obviously not for full price, buy it on the cheap as I did with the first one.

#45 Edited by Ulquiorra (64 posts) -
#46 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

I also found it odd that they are offering 50% off if you are a BF3 Premium member.

#47 Edited by Egg0 (165 posts) -
#48 Posted by Ulquiorra (64 posts) -

@Egg0: I know right, The sheer volume of bugs/fixes you'd think they would have fixed all this so that they could send out review copies, makes you wonder what the certification process really is or does.

#49 Edited by me3639 (1607 posts) -

My theory is its a test to see if reviewers, or games without out review scores are relevant to their sales. Why send out copies to a bunch of reviewers who play more games than anyone? Is their opinion equal to those who only play 5-10 games a year and are the target market for the game? IMO thats smart business. If they sell 3-5 million you are not going to see reviews early ever again from EA, and possibly other publishers. I have no problem with that.

#50 Posted by MegaLombax (381 posts) -

I'm actually looking forward to this game regardless. I know the previous one received a lot of flak, but I enjoyed it quite a lot. I only played the Singleplayer campaign, mind you. (Couldn't play the multiplayer due to bad internet connectivity). Moments like deploying from the Chinook really got me immersed in the campaign experience. If they keep the same formula as the previous one and refine the experience further, then I'm a happy gamer.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.