Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Red Dead Redemption

    Game » consists of 23 releases. Released May 18, 2010

    Red Dead Redemption is the spiritual successor to 2004's Red Dead Revolver, featuring a vibrant, open world set in the decline of the American Wild West. Players take on the role of former outlaw John Marston, who is forced to hunt down his former gang to regain his family.

    Rockstar refusing to send out review copies

    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #151  Edited By haggis
    @CptBedlam:Go and read my first comment. I'm not saying that you said they were getting paid off. Others are, that's what my comment was about. Not only that, I've said repeatedly that it was others saying it and not you. You keep acting as if I'm claiming you said those things. I'm responding to what others here have said, in the context of what you are saying.
     
    You've not proved that sites like IGN get review copies because of their inflated review scores. You're asserting it. And from my perspective, it's a very weak argument given the nature of Metacritic. The whole point of the Metacritic score is to balance out disparate scores. My argument is simple: there are simpler explanations for the choices rather than the conspiracies that they are being paid for the reviews, or suggestions that the publisher is gaming the Metacritic scores. Sites like IGN get review copies because they have much larger readership. It's more important for people to see a review than it is for the Metacritic score to be upped a tenth of a percent because of score inflation. The later might play a role, but in the larger scheme of things, it is inconsequential. It is not, as you claim, the "only" reason they profit. By the way, their getting a review copy is by no means "exclusive," as is made obvious by the fact that there are now at least ten reviews for RDR. Rockstar is obviously giving out review copies to a number of reviewers, not "exclusively" to one. The fact that the game is highly anticipated means they can pick and choose who will get the copies primarily because they don't need the free advertisement of a review. Review copies for less recognizable games have more review copies distributed because they need the publicity.
     
    My point about making decisions after the fact is about future distribution of review copies. That is, if a review site has proven to a publisher that they treat their games fairly, they're more likely to give them review copies in the future. Since no company can be sure what a reviewer will say about a game, it makes little sense to worry about it until after the copies are handed out. This is not a difficult point to understand. Any attempt to decide who to give copies to is based on past performance, not any expectation of what a reviewer might say about a current game (which would be pretty close to gambling).
    Avatar image for cptbedlam
    CptBedlam

    4612

    Forum Posts

    7

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #152  Edited By CptBedlam
    @haggis: You're still being highly naive about the importance of early metacritic scores to publishers. Sure, it balances out over time but that doesn't matter so much (also it only balances out to some degree: if there's a bunch of inflated scores the average in the end will still tip upwards). What matters most in terms of sales are the first few days and the first impression a game makes in the gaming scene because that is the time the most sales are raked in. And THAT is what is being carefully managed by pr people.
     
    Not needing more ads is absolutely no excuse for not sending out review copies to certain sites. Review copies cost publishers next to nothing and each bit of ad space is still welcome, no matter how much you already have.
     
    By the way, I never said that specifically RDR was an IGN exclusive, because it wasn't (I cited other examples for this kind of deal). IGN in this case was just one of the several "safe" sites that would undoubtly contribute to an early high metacritic score and got a review copy. There are many sites with inflated scores, IGN is just one really good example olf them and of how the business works.
     
    Also, there is nothing illegal about it and it's no conspiracy. It's just how the business works and if you or me were pr persons we would probably do the same: trying to get the early scores to be the really high ones in order to maximize early sales. And didn't it occur to you that "past performance" and "expecation about future performance" might be somehow related? Of course, publisher look at the past performance of review sites. And IGN, for example, has time and time again proven to be overly generous with their scores.
    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #153  Edited By haggis
    @CptBedlam: You said, "In the end, btw, IGN profits from all these exlusive deals they only get because of their inflated review scores." What exclusive deals? In what other way could this be read other than to suggest that IGN gets something "exclusively"? In this case, a review copy? What exactly are you talking about, then?
     
    If there were only one or two early reviews, yes, inflated scores would matter. But it's rare to see fewer than a half dozen reviews by release date. Like I said, whatever marginal inflation happens in one reviewer's score is insignificant compared to the other factors involved in the decision to release review copies.
     
    "And didn't it occur to you that "past performance" and "expecation about future performance" might be somehow related?" 
     
    Oh. My. God. It's as if you didn't read what I said. What you said is exactly my point. Finally. Now, go back and read what I originally said and try to figure out why you didn't figure out my argument four posts ago. My God, this discussion is pointless.
    Avatar image for cptbedlam
    CptBedlam

    4612

    Forum Posts

    7

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #154  Edited By CptBedlam
    @haggis: Aw, how often do I have to explain this? IGN lands lots of exlusive review deals because of their highly inflated scores; RDR was not one of those deals but of course IGN was one of the many "safe" sites with inflated scores that are sure to get a review copy. And those are not just two or three sites. Many major gaming sites dish out inflated scores and as a publisher you'll want to have their reviews out before the more critical sites post their reviews and potentially drag the early metacritic average down by several points (make it so they can only post it a week or so after release in order to reduce their impact on sales and on the metacritic score).
     
    Read my posts again, I'm not willing to write everything multiple times only so you can distort it all again.
     
    " What you said is exactly my point."
    Sorry to break it to you: you still didn't get the point.
    Avatar image for sugarray
    SugarRay

    91

    Forum Posts

    5

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #155  Edited By SugarRay
    @haggis said:
    " My God, this discussion is pointless. "
    Yup.  Rockstar is one of the few places where they can decide (for whatever reasons) not to send review copies to the usual suspects and still have their games sell.  Some got reviews (not just a couple) and many did not. Simple as that.
    Avatar image for cptbedlam
    CptBedlam

    4612

    Forum Posts

    7

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #156  Edited By CptBedlam
    @SugarRay said:

    " @haggis said:

    " My God, this discussion is pointless. "

    Yup.  Rockstar is one of the few places where they can decide (for whatever reasons) not to send review copies to the usual suspects and still have their games sell.  Some got reviews (not just a couple) and many did not. Simple as that. "
    Yeah , of course. RS doesn't worry about review scores at all. That is why they didn't write a letter to a ridiculously unimportant magazine last month giving advice on how to properly review their game. Oh wait...
    Avatar image for tmthomsen
    tmthomsen

    2080

    Forum Posts

    66835

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 3

    #157  Edited By tmthomsen

    Probably a piracy issue.

    Avatar image for sugarray
    SugarRay

    91

    Forum Posts

    5

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #158  Edited By SugarRay
    @CptBedlam said:
    " @SugarRay said:

    " @haggis said:

    " My God, this discussion is pointless. "

    Yup.  Rockstar is one of the few places where they can decide (for whatever reasons) not to send review copies to the usual suspects and still have their games sell.  Some got reviews (not just a couple) and many did not. Simple as that. "
    Yeah , of course. RS doesn't worry about review scores at all. That is why they didn't write a letter to a ridiculously unimportant magazine last month giving advice on how to properly review their game. Oh wait... "
    I never said or implied that they 'don't worry about review scores at all'.
    Avatar image for pweidman
    pweidman

    2891

    Forum Posts

    15

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #159  Edited By pweidman
    @Rhaknar said:
    " @pweidman said:
    "
    This staff @Giantbomb has shown little to no interest in RDR,no?  I wonder if that factors in. Have they run any preview stuff about RDR?  None that I'm aware of.  I've also heard Jeff and Ryan say many times they had to purchase games.  This seems like Giantbomb's issue more than any silly R* conspiracy or fear of some metacritic score reductions.  The game's getting stellar reviews across the board.  And Gametrailers does have one up: 
    http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-red-dead/100286       And somehow blaming other sites like IGN for their early reviews with the justification thet they pad scores to get early review copies is just rediculous.  Print copies might be another story, but I do not believe any of this shit about 'subtle' payoffs for website reviewers.  Giantbomb has become, for me, more of an entertainment site vs. information because the crew are just fun and so damn hilarious mostly, and less of a site for baseing purchase decisions on.  Their reviews are just not as timely, and some lately from Brad, sorry to say, have just been misleading, and inaccurate imo.  "
    this shit again? They have the EXACT SAME TRAILERS up as every other site. "

    Amusing.   First, no they don't.  They only have a couple last I checked, but I said 'preview stuff'....you know interviews, early impressions articles, hands-on biz, you know, what's been brewing on many other sites? 
    Avatar image for diamond
    Diamond

    8678

    Forum Posts

    533

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #160  Edited By Diamond
    @TMThomsen:  Guess Vinny will have to shut down the Giant Bomb private BBS after all :/
    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #161  Edited By haggis
    @CptBedlam: *Sigh* Yes, I do get your argument. I think your argument is wrong. You, on the other hand, keep misreading what I'm saying, so it's hard for me to take you seriously. Then you say:
     
    "RS doesn't worry about review scores at all." 
     
    When you start responding to what other people are actually saying, then I'll respond to you again. Now you're just being a dick.
     
    @SugarRay: I think you're exactly right.
     
    But my copy was just delivered by UPS (thank God I'm off today), so I'm going off to play Red Dead right now.
    Avatar image for cptbedlam
    CptBedlam

    4612

    Forum Posts

    7

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #162  Edited By CptBedlam
    @haggis:  Nope, it's a totally valid argument. That's just how the industry works, nothing illegal to it and no conspiracy. You just don't get it because you're naive.
    Avatar image for vorbis
    Vorbis

    2762

    Forum Posts

    967

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 11

    #163  Edited By Vorbis

     It's possible Joystiq didn't get a copy because of all the nasty articles they wrote about the games development, employees being overworked etc. There was some pretty nasty drama around that game on Joystiq.
     
    As for GB? don't know, maybe they feel their game wasn't 5 star material and didn't want a 4star (80) on their metacritic for launch.
     
    I love wild conspiracy theories.

    Avatar image for milkman
    Milkman

    19372

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    #164  Edited By Milkman

    Can't believe I hadn't thought of this yet but...
     
     

    Avatar image for modeps
    modeps

    157

    Forum Posts

    279

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 37

    User Lists: 4

    #165  Edited By modeps

    We just got our review copy today and I'm not really concerned. There's no way I would have been able to put the time in to properly review it for launch date anyway. Our readers will just need to get the review a little later.

    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #166  Edited By haggis
    @CptBedlam: Yeah. I'm naive. Right. What a convincing argument. You make assertions, but you never provide proof. Go ahead. Convince me. So far you've offered nothing to convince me that you're right. As I've said, there are no singular early reviews. They come in batches. Metacritic smooths out early scores. Even if there are only a few pre-release reviews (say, five or six), one outlier doesn't provide a significant boost to a Metacritic score. Initial review scores tend to fit a standard curve, to the point that I would say if publishers were selecting reviewers for review copies based primarily on the assumption they would give them good scores, the publishers are failing miserably to game the system. You offer one example of a high-scored early review, even though there are hundreds of games reviewed, and thousands of reviews. Tens of thousands of reviews. You've got to have a better argument than "my argument is valid." Sorry, but no. 

    Like I said, in the long list of things that influence who does and does not get review copies, assurances about higher scores (especially one point higher variations) mean virtually nothing. Red Dead Redemption had eight pre-release reviews. Assassin's Creed had eleven. AVP? TWENTY-SIX. The reason? Reviews are valued not primarily for their scores, but as free advertising. Scores aren't meaningless, but reviewers are too unpredictable to game the way you suggest. I'm not naive. I know perfectly well what you're suggesting is going on. I'm simply suggesting that publishers don't think the way you think they do. They know better than you what the value of a review is. Because you can't seem to grasp that your assumptions about the review numbers are wrong, you can't fathom why Rockstar would behave the way they do. The reality is actually quite simple: Rockstar didn't send out a lot of review copies because they didn't need to. A game like AVP that sucked was going to get bad scores. They knew it. A few good scores wouldn't matter. So they spammed review copies. Everyone got one. They played the odds, and one of the dozens of gamers who got the review copies actually liked the game. The odds of higher scores for mediocre games goes up as the number of review copies goes out. See how this works? It's not complicated. The company is still doing what you expect them to do: act in their own interest. One high scored review is not worth much to a publisher, as you suggest.
    Avatar image for cptbedlam
    CptBedlam

    4612

    Forum Posts

    7

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #167  Edited By CptBedlam
    @haggis said:

    " @CptBedlam: As I've said, there are no singular early reviews

    You're kidding, right? You're telling me you've never heard of exclusive review deals. That's beyond naive.

    @haggis said:


    one outlier doesn't provide a significant boost to a Metacritic score. Initial review scores tend to fit a standard curve, to the point that I would say if publishers were selecting reviewers for review copies based primarily on the assumption they would give them good scores, the publishers are failing miserably to game the system. You offer one example of a high-scored early review, even though there are hundreds of games reviewed, and thousands of reviews. Tens of thousands of reviews.  

       *sigh*  Please, please read my posts before replying. 
     
    I'm now telling you for the third time that it is not just one site that provides the early metacritic boost. There are lot's of sites that dish out inflated scores on a regular basis.
     
    Exclusive reviews are another story. Those deals aim at throwing out a single score for a few days before release while everyone else is still restricted by an embargo. It's a more concentrated effort of spin and has nothing to do with metacritic.
     
    Also, it is pretty common that metacritic scores decrease a few points over time. You can observe that with almost every game.

    @haggis said:

    The reality is actually quite simple: Rockstar didn't send out a lot of review copies because they didn't need to. A game like AVP that sucked was going to get bad scores. They knew it. A few good scores wouldn't matter. So they spammed review copies. Everyone got one. They played the odds, and one of the dozens of gamers who got the review copies actually liked the game. The odds of higher scores for mediocre games goes up as the number of review copies goes out. See how this works? It's not complicated. The company is still doing what you expect them to do: act in their own interest. One high scored review is not worth much to a publisher, as you suggest. "

    That is complete and utter BS logic. The worse the product, the less it is shown to testers. That is a common concept in most industries. Movies, games etc. If there's a sea of bad reviews and just a few good ones, then no consumer is gonna think "oh, this might be a good product because a few people thought so".
     
    AVP for about a week had ONE review out - the IGN exclusive review. Unfortunately a scan of an unfavorable test by Game Informer leaked on the net and undermined the exclusive review strategy.
     
    And as I said, review copies of videogames cost the publishers practically nothing. Denying them to major websites who even asked for the review copy is clearly NOT a case of "we don't need more reviews". It's managing which reviews go out early and which do not.
     
    Btw.: Funny how you claim to know reality; then do the same that you ask from me: provide proof (at least I provided examples to back my claims).
    Avatar image for icemael
    Icemael

    6901

    Forum Posts

    40352

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 20

    User Lists: 20

    #168  Edited By Icemael
    @haggis: You talk about reviews being valued for being free advertisements rather than for their scores. Then, how do you explain that

    @Milkman said: 

    "places like "Cynamite", "GameReactor", and "Playmania", among others, were given review copies"

    If they were only going to send out a small number of review copies, the main reason being advertising, surely it would be a wiser decision to send copies to fairly large and respected sites like Joystic and GiantBomb than Cynamite and Playmania, sites (or publications) most people have never even heard of? But they didn't do that. No, they sent copies to those sites, and downright refused Joystic, even after repeated requests.
     
    I don't see any reasonable explanation other than scores. The GiantBomb staff have expressed their lack of excitement for the game, and I'm sure Joystic has done something similar.
    Avatar image for owl_of_minerva
    owl_of_minerva

    1485

    Forum Posts

    3260

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 1

    #169  Edited By owl_of_minerva
    @Icemael:  I think Haggis' point is pretty valid. A publisher is only reliant on reviews for free advertising if they don't have the money to advertise the game themselves. Whatever Rockstar is doing is working. This is easily one of the most hyped games I've seen in a long time; wherever I go that has to do with video games people are talking about it. It's in Rockstar's best interest to control and spin the information as much as possible. The score is not as relevant as people think, it's more that the unknown is more desirable than being able to rationally evaluate your purchase.
    My own guess is that they've given a few review copies to major publications, those that they prefer for whatever reason, because they wouldn't want to give the impression of only giving the game to smaller sites and having no confidence in their product. If they could dispense of reviews without repercussions they almost certainly would.
    Avatar image for mikemcn
    mikemcn

    8642

    Forum Posts

    4863

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 8

    #170  Edited By mikemcn

    Rock star sounds like kind of a douche bag developer, their games are great but they seem a little too headstrong.

    Avatar image for icemael
    Icemael

    6901

    Forum Posts

    40352

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 20

    User Lists: 20

    #171  Edited By Icemael
    @owl_of_minerva: If the "the unknown is desirable" approach requires that you send review copies to the largest, most well-known sites, it's not a very good "the unknown is desirable" approach.
    Avatar image for agentboolen
    agentboolen

    1995

    Forum Posts

    12

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    #172  Edited By agentboolen

    I don't blame them for not wanting reviews on day 1 knowing there are people that will buy anything on day 1 just to see for themselves.  But me I won't touch it till GB or other sites review it....  Thats just the way i am..........
     ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Zelda 2 will be the only day 1 purchase that I bought that sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Avatar image for jakob187
    jakob187

    22970

    Forum Posts

    10045

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 8

    User Lists: 9

    #173  Edited By jakob187

    Who cares?!  FUCK! 
     
    The game is goddamn excellent.

    Avatar image for awesomerory
    AwesomeRory

    115

    Forum Posts

    198

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 4

    #174  Edited By AwesomeRory
    @jakob187 said:
    " Who cares?!  FUCK!  The game is goddamn excellent. "
    Seconded
    Avatar image for jeffsekai
    Jeffsekai

    7162

    Forum Posts

    1060

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #175  Edited By Jeffsekai

    Well the games awesome. So who cares

    Avatar image for fishmicmuffin
    fishmicmuffin

    1071

    Forum Posts

    702

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 6

    #176  Edited By fishmicmuffin
    @jakob187 said:
    " Who cares?!  FUCK!  The game is goddamn excellent. "
    Words to live by!
    Avatar image for ryanwho
    ryanwho

    12011

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #177  Edited By ryanwho

    Man. You guys remember how we felt about Rockstar and Take 2 before RDR? What a disaster. EA might buy them up after all if they keep lowering their stock like this.

    Avatar image for jackijinx
    JackiJinx

    3255

    Forum Posts

    23588

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 34

    #178  Edited By JackiJinx

    Rockstar nor any other game company is obligated to give review copies to anyone at all. That said, if you, the person reading this comment, were to be in charge of the Rockstar review copies to be handed out, would you give them out to a) all media outlets that request them, b) all media outlets that are reputable, c) all media outlets that have given favorable scores to Rockstar games, or d) wish you had a more fulfilling job?

    Avatar image for onemanx
    OneManX

    1728

    Forum Posts

    50

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 6

    #179  Edited By OneManX
    @ryanwho said:
    " Man. You guys remember how we felt about Rockstar and Take 2 before RDR? What a disaster. EA might buy them up after all if they keep lowering their stock like this. "
    Yes... b/c the sales of RDR are gonna be so low.... (sarcasm meter explodes)
    Avatar image for jakob187
    jakob187

    22970

    Forum Posts

    10045

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 8

    User Lists: 9

    #180  Edited By jakob187

    ***NEWS FLASH*** 

    Not a single fucking company out there is obligated in the least bit to send a review copy of their game.  Moreover, if I were a company that made a game and I were sending out review copies, why would I send one to a group of doods that (and I mean this with no offense) were posting up the RDR videos days after we were putting them out, wasn't posting up every press release, etc?  I'm going to send it to the major outlets that the mass mainstream notices. 
     
    People bitching about Rockstar not sending copies to everyone are the same kind of people that bitch about a Zerg rush.
    Avatar image for asembo
    Asembo

    103

    Forum Posts

    64

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #181  Edited By Asembo

    Maybe Giantbomb pissed off R* San Diego with their Midnight Club: LA review? I don't know, unfortunately these things happen sometimes.

    Avatar image for meatxbeatsxman
    MeatXbeatsXman

    264

    Forum Posts

    624

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 6

    #182  Edited By MeatXbeatsXman

    I think it's just a matter of trust not to leak a review, and also just positive relations with different publications/ websites. That's what it's like with retailers. There's a local shop in my town where he got shafted copies of God of War III since he didn't have the credibility.

    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #183  Edited By haggis
    @CptBedlam:  Exclusive reviews: of course I've seen them, but by release there are always at least at least a handful. And the exclusive reviews I've seen are rarely the highest score the game receives. But you are still completely missing the point, so I'm not going to rehash this again. Let's just say your argument about "exclusive reviews" and the argument that publishers use "lots of sites that inflate scores" are somewhat in conflict with each other. Not to mention the fact that if it's obvious to the publishers (and you) that the scores are too high, then it's probably obvious to just about everyone else.
     
    "I'm now telling you for the third time that it is not just one site that provides the early metacritic boost. There are lot's of sites that dish out inflated scores on a regular basis." And if a lot of sites are dishing out lots of inflated scores, then are they really inflated? I would say not. There is a range of scores that gaming sites give games. If you could prove rather than simply assert that publishers were getting better scores early in the process (by gaming the system, as you suggest), then show me evidence of it. But when I look at early Metacritic scores, you know what I see? No evidence that this is actually true. In your mind it's how things work, but not how it works in the real world.
     
    My logic isn't BS. Look at it from the publisher's perspective: they've got a great game. They know it. Why? BECAUSE TONS OF SITES HAVE "RED DEAD REDEMPTION LAUNCH CENTERS." They're already hyping the game. What added benefit would an early review grant? Very little. Instead, they hand out a limited number of review copies, for a variety of other reasons, some of which are certainly the ones you're suggesting, but the fact is by the time past review scores come into play, the decisions have already largely been made for other reasons. DO YOU GET IT NOW? Probably not.
     
    On the other hand, a game like AVP has hardly any press. The game had lousy buzz. Rather than dump good money after bad and buy a shitload of ad space, they spam review copies, knowing that at least a few reviewers will give high scores, because in a pool of 20+ reviewers, they'd get at least one who would like it. During the long run-up to the release, they no doubt noted at least a handful of game journos who seemed to like the game a lot, or at least more than the others, and showed more interest. They gave the review copy and exlusive to them. But the fact is, by the time the game releases, there are enough reviews out to harm the game's sales. Most people don't look a week early for a review, and then read other reviews later. ESPECIALLY when they use Metacritic.
     
    There are good games, mediocre games, and bad games. Games that are truly bad are indeed withheld from reviewers. But there aren't that many games that are so bad that they are withheld. It's relatively rare. On the other hand, it's just as rare for a can't-miss game like Red Dead Redemption. RDR needed very little advertisement space. Everyone knew it was coming. Gaming sites covered it extensively. Rockstar gave gaming sites a long video series that sites put up for free. Rockstar knows, in short, how to market a game.
     
    As for proof: I posted some data samples about the number of pre-release reviews, which you've completely ignored. So, now it's your turn. Post some numbers like I did that back up your arguments.Your claims could easily be proven if you'd go on Metacritic and actually assemble some lists of game scores. You're making the claims; now provide some numbers. But you won't, because you're lazy.
     
    @Icemael: I think you misunderstand me, a little, but that's understandable. Publishers will approach reviews differently based on the quality of game they are offering. A mediocre game like AVP needs to be seen since its pre-release buzz was not great, and the publisher could not rely (as Rockstar did) on offering free content to sites (in the form of videos) to drum up interest. So it spammed review copies as a form of getting free advertising space in the form of reviews. By the release date, the Meta score was already in the 60s (despite the IGN UK score). For a game like RDR that had much better buzz, and lots of anticipation, review copy recipients are almost certainly chosen based on whatever other choices the PR department might have had in mind, mostly for buttering up sites for other reasons. Some of it was almost certainly based on personal interaction (developers recognizing a reviewer's particular interest when doing pre-release interviews, etc) journolistic quality, page views, subscriber numbers, etc. What seems pretty obvious is that handing out limited numbers of copies means those copies are more valuable. That is, the fewer sites that have them, the more pageviews they'll get from them. For a huge game like RDR, that value is correspondingly huge. Not so for AVP. Part of me wonders if more review copies of AVP were given out than produced reviews.
     
    In short, review copies aren't just about free advertising. Just in certain situations. In others, they can be handed out more tactically. The idea, though, that it is primarily about review score is silly. There is a long list of other criteria at work. It's far more complicated than what some people are suggesting. They're forgetting that this is a business, and that business is far more about relationships than it is about ephemeral numbers on Metacritic.
    Avatar image for raiz265
    raiz265

    2264

    Forum Posts

    6

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #184  Edited By raiz265
    @Jeust said:
    " Not only that, but this way there was no leaked copy on internet. what is reassuring. :p  "
    There has been one for several days now...
    Avatar image for eightbitshik
    EightBitShik

    1517

    Forum Posts

    4547

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 9

    #185  Edited By EightBitShik

    Maybe Rockstar saw GiantBomb and said "Who?" they are still kind of new and don't have ads up yet so they kind of thought it was a waste to send it to them. To be honest we won't know until someone from Rockstar says why. I suggest someone give them a call.

    Avatar image for superfriend
    superfriend

    1786

    Forum Posts

    10

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #186  Edited By superfriend
    @bcjohnnie said:
      Really disappoints me that a studio that can make such good games seems to be staffed by dicks. "
    Well, Rockstar is a publisher. They don´t really clarify which studio makes which game, but in this case it is Rockstar San Diego.
    I think the actual developers of the game would gladly talk about it, but Rockstar as a publisher doesn´t want them to talk about anything. I guess the development of RDR has not been easy and they want to avoid any mention of bad working conditions or something.
    Avatar image for cptbedlam
    CptBedlam

    4612

    Forum Posts

    7

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #187  Edited By CptBedlam
    @haggis: Seriously man, this is a discussion forum. Please don't write short stories. I'd answer all of that stuff but it's just too time consuming. I've got better stuff to do than to put hours into showing you how naive and just plain wrong your assertions are.
     
    Basically you're writing the same BS over and over and hope to win the argument by length of your text. 
     
    And lol@ your numbers of pre-release reviews that you pulled out of your *ss. That's your proof? You got to be kidding. I at least referred to specific examples. Also, you completely didn't get what I told you: there are LOTS of (big) gaming sites with inflated review scores. IGN is just one tip of one particulary big iceberg. It doesn't matter if there's a handful or a dozen reviews before release because most of them are going to be from sites with inflated scores. THAT is why the metacritic average ALWAYS decreases over the weeks after a release.
    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #188  Edited By haggis
    @CptBedlam: Actually, I got my numbers from gamerankings.com. I looked up the games and simply counted how many reviews were published through the day of release. See how easy reasearch can be when you're not a lazy ass? This is really not difficult at all. The data is all there to see, you just have to bother to look. Again, you make an assertion: metacritic scores always decrease over time after a release. That should be easy to prove with facts. You did see some facts before you came to this conclusion, right? Right? No? Thought so. Show me some data that proves it.
     
    You've been factually challenged the whole time. You say that the AVP review at IGN UK (you keep saying IGN, even though their score was 7 of 10, not 8.5), was up for "like a week" before there were any other reviews, but in reality it was only four days before Gamespot's review (5.5, by the way) went up. You make it sound like IGN UK's 8.5 was somehow unusual, even though AtomicGamer gave it an 84, and Worth Playing gave it an 80. Neither has a reputation for inflated scores.
     
    If you read carefully (or at all), you'd realize that I understand exactly that you claim there are lots of review sites with inflated scores. You just completely glossed over my suggestion that if, as you suggest, lots of sites have inflated scores, than one has to wonder if those scores are really "inflated" or not. If half of reviewers give a game a six, and the other half an eight, are the later scores inflated? Or are the former scores deflated? That is, of course, what Metacritic is for: aggregation sites like metacritic and gamerankings level out the outliers through averaging. You know, middle school math.
     
    I keep writing long text because I'm trying to dumb down for you what is a very simple argument. If you're too lazy to argue the merits, that's fine. You're basically admitting that you can't defend your argument with facts, and don't want to spend the time to do so. By now, though, you've certainly stopped reading. If you ever do provide some evidence other than just assertions, I would be interested in seeing it.
    Avatar image for funzzo
    Funzzo

    951

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #189  Edited By Funzzo
    @cancerdancer said:
    "Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "

    or the companies that they pay for a good review.
    Avatar image for icemael
    Icemael

    6901

    Forum Posts

    40352

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 20

    User Lists: 20

    #190  Edited By Icemael
    @haggis said:

    "In short, review copies aren't just about free advertising. Just in certain situations. In others, they can be handed out more tactically. The idea, though, that it is primarily about review score is silly. There is a long list of other criteria at work. It's far more complicated than what some people are suggesting. They're forgetting that this is a business, and that business is far more about relationships than it is about ephemeral numbers on Metacritic."

    When I said "scores" I didn't necessarily mean only scores. I meant the sites' response to the game in general. GiantBomb have shown their lack of interest in several ways. They've talked very little about the game on the Bombcast, posted very few articles and videos relating to it, and openly said what amounts to "meh... we don't really care". 

    Now a nice way to sum up "it's because their response to the game has been less than positive, which they've shown in several different ways" and then explaining each of said ways, is to say "because they probably wouldn't give it a great score". The score is, after all, the end result; it's where a site's interest (or lack thereof) in a game culminates.
    Avatar image for drpockets000
    DrPockets000

    2878

    Forum Posts

    660

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #191  Edited By DrPockets000
    @ColumnBreaker said:
    " @cancerdancer said:
    " Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "
    Read: Pay. "
    No doubt.
    Avatar image for professoress
    ProfessorEss

    7962

    Forum Posts

    160

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 11

    #192  Edited By ProfessorEss

    lol, you guys are still talkin about this?

    Avatar image for phantomzxro
    phantomzxro

    1613

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #193  Edited By phantomzxro
    @ProfessorEss:
    That's what i'm saying! give it a rest a quick look is up yay for all!
    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #194  Edited By haggis
    @Icemael: I see what you're saying. However, the criteria I'm talking about go beyond simply the review results. These are companies (gaming sites and game developers) that have to work together beyond individual games. They necessarily take a longer view. You can sum up all of the responses from Giant Bomb and say they didn't get a review copy because they didn't show enough interest in the game. But the reality could be very different: that Giant Bomb didn't get a copy because they decided to give out, say, ten copies, and in their PR meeting, Giant Bomb just didn't get enough votes to make the list. Maybe one of the PR people has taken an irrational dislike to one of the Giant Bomb reviewers. Maybe they had a bad day. Or, maybe, the PR department didn't not choose Giant Bomb, but had other positive reasons to give the copy to another site. I've been in enough of those sorts of meetings where arbitrary limits, personal pique, and other random fits of fate make PR people do irrational things. So, yes, you can sum up all of those indications from Giant Bomb as "they wouldn't give it a good score," but that sounds like a rationalization more than a reason.
     
    It's possible they chose to send review copies to those who best supported the run-up to the game with videos, etc., except ... GameSpot seemed to have every video up and even had a launch center, and they didn't seem to get a copy, either. More evidence, I think, that the entire process of choosing who got copies was driven more by personal pique than any serious marketing strategy.
    Avatar image for icemael
    Icemael

    6901

    Forum Posts

    40352

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 20

    User Lists: 20

    #195  Edited By Icemael
    @haggis: I thought video game marketing dudes were these really calculating kind of people. Like:
     
    "GiantBomb gets 9045 visitors a day, and Gamesite gets 7085 visitors a day."
    "Yeah, but GiantBomb's average Rockstar game rating is 80%, while Gamesite's is 90%."
    "Don't forget, guys. We also have to take into consideration their coverage of the game -- GiantBomb has posted 3 articles, two of which were previews and one of which was positive, and 2 videos, while Gamesite has posted 8 articles, three of which were previews, and all of which were positive. So I think we should send a review copy to Gamesite, but not Giantbomb."
    "All in agreement?"
    "Aye."
    Avatar image for haggis
    haggis

    1674

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 1

    #196  Edited By haggis
    @Icemael: Marketing people can be calculating kinds of people. But marketing people are only part of the equation. PR people, on the other hand, tend to be networkers. That is, they spend a lot of time glad-handing people. Making personal connections with them, making them feel valued, making their contributions or questions or suggestions feel as though they've been taken into account. The problem with this whole discussion is thinking that it's all about numbers. If that were the case, we'd know so much more than we do about the process. But numbers are only a part of the decision-making process. If you had ten numbers people in the room, your discussion might happen. 
     
    But you sprinkle a few PR people in, and you get stuff like, "But Bob from GameReviewSiteX.com and I had a great discussion the last time we showed them the game, and while the site hasn't given us a lot of attention, I think if we gave them a review copy then maybe when the sequel comes out they'll play more of our videos in the future." The numbers guys would complain, since that site gets half as many pageviews as the others, and then the entire thing would devolve into an argument, the result of which would be a number of compromises that, from the outside, look like a complete clusterfuck. Which is, in my experience, how nearly all such meetings end. I've been in way too many of those sorts of meetings. The fact is, early review copies are entirely too valuable a commodity for PR people to not want to use as tools of the trade, no matter what the marketing people might say.
     
    Even when you get a number of pure-numbers marketing people in a room, there is rarely any deep agreement on strategy, or even what the numbers mean. Even those sorts of meetings you're lucky to get much more than grudging agreement.
     
    Edit: It's also worth noting how marketing people love complicated metrics. After all, if just about anyone could do the math, they wouldn't be needed. The more complicated the formula for deriving marketing data, the more argument there is over the results.
    Avatar image for professoress
    ProfessorEss

    7962

    Forum Posts

    160

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 11

    #197  Edited By ProfessorEss
    @Icemael said:

    "GiantBomb has posted 3 articles, two of which were previews and one of which was positive, and 2 videos...

    Still not sure where people are pulling this two videos argument outta.
     
    (ps: It's twelve if ya don't feel like following the link)
    Avatar image for icemael
    Icemael

    6901

    Forum Posts

    40352

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 20

    User Lists: 20

    #198  Edited By Icemael
    @ProfessorEss said:

    " @Icemael said:

    "GiantBomb has posted 3 articles, two of which were previews and one of which was positive, and 2 videos...

    Still not sure where people are pulling this two videos argument outta.  (ps: It's twelve if ya don't feel like following the link) "
    I have no idea how many videos or articles they've actually posted, just as I have no idea what their average Rockstar game score is, or how many visitors they get per day. I made those number up, just as I made up Gamesite. 
     
    EDIT: I tried going to "www.gamesite.com" and got taken to Hasbro's website. I very much doubt Rockstar sent a review copy to them :P
    Avatar image for btman
    btman

    1114

    Forum Posts

    2974

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #199  Edited By btman
    @cancerdancer said:
    " Quality control over the reviews. They send out review copies to the companies they trust. "
    you mean the companies they payed
    Avatar image for starcasm
    StarcasM

    2

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #200  Edited By StarcasM

    O.K., I'll bite.. 
     
    First off, I don't know why GNTBMB got refused, but I might know why 'Stiq got dissed. 
     
    When they did their "Best Games of the Year" or something like that, ALL of the editors (or writers) EXCLUDED GTAIV from ALL nominations. 
    From what I remember, games like Mirrors Edge, Assassin's Creed and MGS4 was mentioned alot, but NO ONE voted for GTAIV. -Again, GTAIV got snubbed from everyone's nominations. -It wasn't even a "honorable" mention! 
     
    A few days later, one by one the writers gave out their personal "fave" lists.. Again, no Mention of GTAIV -except from one writer from what I remember.  
     
    When Justin did his list and (of course) excluded GTAIV he was questioned on the GTAIV snub. He "Claimed" that he NEVER played ANY of the GTA series from GTAIII up to GTAIV. (WOW) 
     
    Justin also "Claimed" that he enjoyed Saints Row 2 more!! (WOW) 
     
    At the end of the day, someone at Joystiq actually thought it was "Cool" to diss One of the Biggest game of that year. -So I think that is the reason, or one of.. 
     
    Now, Joystiq is a well written Game site, but when you have what, 7 or more writers SNUB GTAIV and one of the Main writers/editors DISS the Whole GTA Series, would you give them a copy of your next big game for review?? 
     
    I wouldn't!!

    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.