• We are delighted to introduce GiftBot 2.0, the next generation of our popular gifting feature. To celebrate, we'll be giving away some incredible prizes over the coming weeks in one big Giveaway Extravaganza!

Giant Bomb claims they were denied a Borderlands 3 review copy due to 'dubious E3 coverage'.

DiceHands

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,098
Yeah... Im gonna guess it has nothing to do with their E3 coverage and everything to do with their 30 minute conversation about the infamous USB stick and the crazy antics that Randy Pitchford is constantly up to.

I had a feeling when listening to that that it would sever ties with the Borderlands folks for GB.
 

Daebo

Member
Oct 26, 2017
222
Cincinnati
I think our minds work in very different ways. I see absolutely nothing immoral about what 2K did here. This is just my opinion though. Would like to hear why people think 2K are morally obliged to send review codes to all major gaming sites though.
I think the words you all are looking for is ethical, not moral. Which I believe this is all unethical.
 

Quantza

Member
Oct 27, 2017
258
I personally prefer to read reviews from outlets that I know purchased their own copy of the game.
Why? If you've spent money on the game, that's a sunk cost.
Some people will try to make that cost look better to them, than it is.
In an ideal world, I would want gaming sites to have zero relationship with publishers.
Then don't go around saying PR strategies are not immoral. Instead teach people to actually understand what games consist of, either through educated guessing via previews, or in this case, not purchasing at all until external reviews are done by people outside of 2K's system - likely when the game has been released. Even calling out manipulative situations such as this one, might help a few people.

I just don’t think 2K are doing anything wrong here. Someone is just doing there job and they’re not misleading people any more than how everyone else does by not listing all of the games faults on the retail box. Everyone wants their products to be viewed as positively as possible.
Not everything is positive, so sometimes information is being hidden from a consumer.
Whether that is wrong or right, depends on how easy it is to pass on the information, in order to allow people to make an unbiased decision as possible.

Since 2K could easily allow independent reviews just by sending the game to most journalists, which takes less effort than setting up their approach, there's a hidden reason why they are doing so. They could tell us what that is, but they haven't.

Should you trust someone that unnecessarily hides information from you?
 

jeyu

Member
Dec 6, 2018
152
In the same year I saw pc gamers fighting over exclusivity on pc .Saw exclusive games going to rival company's.And game journalists fighting over for review copies . What a year on gaming , and I don't even talked about the in game casinos on games that can be played with real money.
 
Oct 27, 2017
631
NY
i guess they couldn't tell them the truth, that it was actually because their doughy shitchild pervert of a ceo is mad that they mocked him
 

Anth0ny

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,064
Their coverage of the whole pitchford situation was hilarious

Could give 2 shits about them covering borderlands 3 or not.

Worth
 

Actinium

Member
Oct 27, 2017
597
California
What's telling is as far as i can remember they've barely said a word about borderlands for years. So at best it's a 'well they didn't specifically mention how excited they are for a new borderlands recently so let's strategically exclude them' and it's possibly as far as being retributive for mentioning the craziness of the pitchford situation at all despite it being unavoidable news you'd have to actively turn a blind eye to not to at least mention on a weekly video game podcast.
 

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
What's telling is as far as i can remember they've barely said a word about borderlands for years. So at best it's a 'well they didn't specifically mention how excited they are for a new borderlands recently so let's strategically exclude them' and it's possibly as far as being retributive for mentioning the craziness of the pitchford situation at all despite it being unavoidable news you'd have to actively turn a blind eye to not to at least mention on a weekly video game podcast.
Considering how personally vengeful Randy seems to be according to court documents, the simplest assumption to make would be that he is doing this to spite GB.
 

Hupsel

Member
Oct 28, 2017
491
Also it´s not like GiantBom doesn´t review games anymore. I think their quick looks and impressions during it are as good as a review sometimes.
 

DiceHands

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,098
I don’t think that at all. I personally prefer to read reviews from outlets that I know purchased their own copy of the game.
While I get the sentiment, that doesnt automatically mean that they will be more realistically critical about a game.

More often than not, it has the opposite effect due to confirmation bias and the way people avoid admitting buyers remorse because they spent X amount of dollars on something.

For instance, if I get a game for free, I am more likely to fall off it quicker if it sucks. If i paid for the game, I feel obligated to stick it out and tell myself it isnt as bad as it seems.
 

WarRock

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,118
I don’t think that at all. I personally prefer to read reviews from outlets that I know purchased their own copy of the game. I would also encourage people to do the same. Nobody is unbiased and any form of direct relationship with the publisher will have an effect on the review.
But... spending money on the product will also create a bias.
 

Hucast

Member
Mar 25, 2019
3,213
Overall this will damage borderlands more than it helps because the game is a lot less covered and talked about this way
 
Oct 27, 2017
822
Overall this will damage borderlands more than it helps because the game is a lot less covered and talked about this way
Assuming the game is actually solid and doesn't have any massive glaring faults, which seems to be the case, it won't matter ala Doom 2016.

Sad but true but Randy was right in his whole trumpian projection of how people will still buy the game or whatever it was he said.
 

ericsp17

Member
Oct 27, 2017
291
This is probably the most entertainment I'll get out of Borderlands 3 anyway, so nice going 2K
 

Pikma

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,556
I don’t think that at all. I personally prefer to read reviews from outlets that I know purchased their own copy of the game. I would also encourage people to do the same. Nobody is unbiased and any form of direct relationship with the publisher will have an effect on the review.

Giant Bomb is my favourite gaming site, and I’d prefer to wait for coverage that comes from something they bought themselves. In an ideal world, I would want gaming sites to have zero relationship with publishers.

I just don’t think 2K are doing anything wrong here. Someone is just doing there job and they’re not misleading people any more than how everyone else does by not listing all of the games faults on the retail box. Everyone wants their products to be viewed as positively as possible.
This is a take
 

Hucast

Member
Mar 25, 2019
3,213
It won't hurt it at all, the game is gonna be massive, it doesn't even sound like they're trying to hide a bad game, just something that is more of the same at worst, that's the weirdest thing.
Borderlands 2 was massive so going from a >10 million franchise it's bound to stay massive, but it wont reach that peak anymore imo. So yeah "people will still buy the game", but also a lot less.
 

pagrab

Member
Oct 27, 2017
439
I believe that 2K’s behavior is shit, but gotta admit that their E3 coverage of B3 was pretty bad. Abby couldn’t get into the mindset she was in while she was playing the game (she was saying this herself) and the commentary felt completely disjointed from the video. It felt almost like a parody.
 

Jintor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,275
When I think Giant Bomb and Borderlands, I mainly think of clowning on Randy Pitchford for a straight half hour for leaving his magic vagina videos on a USB key in a Medieval Times
 

MetalGear?

Member
Nov 8, 2017
475
I kind of get where you're coming from, but Giant Bomb spends more coverage and time talking about major releases than many other outlets, they just don't do "traditional" reviews often any more.

Take Mortal Kombat 11, for instance - it didn't get an official 'review', but got an hour long podcast dedicated to talking about their opinion on the game, a Quick Look, an Unfinished, and a multitude of other discussions across multiple other podcast episodes and videos.

Jeff has been very open about his opinion regarding traditional reviews and how he feels they are becoming less and less of a...thing. This extended coverage is just their new method of reviewing and talking about games.

In other words, I'd say they absolutely should still be receiving review copies, because their extended 'review' coverage is where many people go for impressions and information for purchasing decisions - myself included.

For a more homer take - I'm heavily of the opinion that Jeff is just once again ahead of the industry curve when it comes to the future of reviewing, and they just haven't found the correct formula/presentation/hub for each title as of yet.
I agree with all of this.
 

zoltek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
486
On the one hand, this is extremely poor form if true and basically amounts to cheating the system. On the other hand, with as much media available re: most games prior to their release -- including extended gameplay -- if you rely on a metacritic number to determine whether you buy a game, you are being a moron.
 

Complicated

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,317
I feel like I hear about most publishers randomly not sending review code to Giant Bomb and other outlets like Waypoint who aren't obsessed with having the first reviews up and getting massive page hits. I didn't think it was that much of a problem for them anymore from the way they talk about it.

It's pretty likely that 2K/Gearbox being misleading about it means it's Pitchford being a child and forcing people who work for him to make up embarrassing unprofessional excuses.
 

Gilver

Member
Nov 14, 2018
2,036
Costa Rica
So if this worked would they have gotten a 80-84 on meta otherwise? How effective could this have been if they did it so aggressively.
 

Pikma

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,556
I believe that 2K’s behavior is shit, but gotta admit that their E3 coverage of B3 was pretty bad. Abby couldn’t get into the mindset she was in while she was playing the game (she was saying this herself) and the commentary felt completely disjointed from the video. It felt almost like a parody.
I don't think there should be a but after an statement like that, no, even if you (and them) disagree with their coverage.
 

ryan13ts

Member
Oct 28, 2017
375
I wish it had came from a better source that didn't all but sell out, but there's some slight truth in what they're saying regarding some places possibly scoring low just to be arbitrary, at least to me (Giant Bomb isn't one of them though. They're pretty legit and the shit they brought up regarding Fallout 4 was beyond true).

I read Edge for years and they were the main offender of this type of scoring to me, since some of their reviews felt like they were reaching to score low, especially if the review seemed to contradict the actual score. I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but it's not like gaming journalism is immune from this type of stuff either.
 

HK-47

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,005
I wish it had came from a better source that didn't all but sell out, but there's some slight truth in what they're saying regarding some places possibly scoring low just to be arbitrary, at least to me (Giant Bomb isn't one of them though. They're pretty legit and the shit they brought up regarding Fallout 4 was beyond true).

I read Edge for years and they were the main offender of this type of scoring to me, since some of their reviews felt like they were reaching to score low, especially if the review seemed to contradict the actual score. I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but it's not like gaming journalism is immune from this type of stuff either.
Edge scores games lower because they don’t feel beholden to the 7-10 that most other outlets like to use.
 

Jakisthe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,197
Does Giant Bomb typically reflect this sort of chicanery - when it's this blatant - in their reviews?
 

Pikma

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,556
I wish it had came from a better source that didn't all but sell out, but there's some slight truth in what they're saying regarding some places possibly scoring low just to be arbitrary, at least to me (Giant Bomb isn't one of them though. They're pretty legit and the shit they brought up regarding Fallout 4 was beyond true).

I read Edge for years and they were the main offender of this type of scoring to me, since some of their reviews felt like they were reaching to score low, especially if the review seemed to contradict the actual score. I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but it's not like gaming journalism is immune from this type of stuff either.
We got someone who genuinely agrees with the point brought up in that surreal video

Goddamn this place is something