one for the history books. Miss Ryan so much.Remember when Ryan Davis bodied Anthony Burch (the "writer" of BL2)? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
do you by any chance know what game Burch was talking about?
one for the history books. Miss Ryan so much.Remember when Ryan Davis bodied Anthony Burch (the "writer" of BL2)? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
one for the history books. Miss Ryan so much.
do you by any chance know what game Burch was talking about?
These are the nominees from 2013, so I'm guessing The Walking Dead? I don't remember that line in it though.one for the history books. Miss Ryan so much.
do you by any chance know what game Burch was talking about?
If the scores have nothing to do with it, what do you believe the reasons for the selectivness is?I meant it's petty to not give Giant Bomb a copy for free because they (Gearbox) didn't like what they (Giant Bomb) said about them during E3.
And I wouldn't really label this as "manipulating review scores". If anything, it's not nearly as bad in that respect as Bethesda denying anyone review copies. If people really want to know what Giant Bomb has to say about the game, they can just wait for them to buy it and give their thoughts on it.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with the review scores, I just said I wouldn't label it as "manipulating review scores". Yes it seems they're being selective with who gets to review the game for these reasons specifically, at least in this one instance that we've heard about.If the scores have nothing to do with it, what do you believe the reasons for the selectivness is?
Most people are on the same page here, that they didn't give Giant Bomb a code because they were too negative, but if you have some other idea it's worth sharing instead of just saying "I don't think it's this".
I mean, this is basically just a more eloquent way of repeating the "If they want to review it , buy it" post from the beginning of the thread. Which is a bad take. I really don't see how someone can look at this and not label it as manipulating scores. It is blatant.I meant it's petty to not give Giant Bomb a copy for free because they (Gearbox) didn't like what they (Giant Bomb) said about them during E3.
And I wouldn't really label this as "manipulating review scores". If anything, it's not nearly as bad in that respect as Bethesda denying anyone review copies. If people really want to know what Giant Bomb has to say about the game, they can just wait for them to buy it and give their thoughts on it.
I guess I would label something like PAYING an outlet to give a positive score as "manipulating review scores", not denying one indie outlet a free copy of the game.I mean, this is basically just a more eloquent way of repeating the "If they want to review it , buy it" post from the beginning of the thread. Which is a bad take. I really don't see how someone can look at this and not label it as manipulating scores. It is blatant.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with the review scores, I just said I wouldn't label it as "manipulating review scores". Yes it seems they're being selective with who gets to review the game for these reasons specifically, at least in this one instance that we've heard about.
I also didn't deny that it seems they denied GB a copy of the game because they were being too negative...did you read my posts at all?
I was originally responded to because I just agreed with another poster who said:
Me personally, I dont really feel bad for reviewers not getting a copy of the game early. I dont know any other industry that would complain about critics selectively not getting a early show of something. Shady or not , If its my product i can show it to who i want right?
Wanting this game to do bad just because the PR department at 2k is kind of shitty. A lot of good devs probably worked hard on the title.
That's all lol. Giant Bomb aren't owed a free copy of the game, they can buy it just like I have to. Because they make videos for YouTube and have a popular podcast they're entitled to a free game? That's just not really how I choose to see it, I guess. And I 100% stand by the second part of that dude's comment, that people seemingly want this game to do bad because Randy Pitchford has been making stupid decisions - but he's not the only person at Gearbox, and Borderlands 3 looks like it'll be as much fun as the first two - that's all. I only got more defensive when someone compared denying a small outlet a free video game to a fascist government denying news coverage to media outlets...
This behaviour is re-inforced by the way people bang on about metacritic as though the cumulative score is a trophy or a stick. Its terrible and we can stop publishers caring by stopping the nonsense and overreactions.
The review threads on here show exactly why publishers do this - 19 good reviews and one average to middling one and the average one is championed and talked about for weeks on end. It needs to stop. Pick reviewers you like and trust and read them and stop using aggregated nonsense as some kind of a justification or trophy.
If this happened because Pitchford was felt personally attacked I'd actually find that a fair reason compared to gaming the metacritic.I think the real reason is more likely down to how often and hard they've gone in on Pitchford's off field antics this year.
Abby and Dan were disinterested in the game in their preview footage coverage to put it mildly. Which is fair enough if they didn't enjoy it. They were honest with their opinion on it. Though they didn't really have a lot to say in the video so most of it was just reiterating their lack of excitement about the game.I don't even remember then being that critical or cynical about Borderlands. I thought they were all pretty interested.
I don't have your experience etc but that all makes a lot of sense. What stopped the other review outlets throwing the PR company under the bus though? Why didn't they call out the cherry picking and selective coverage?
GB, Kotaku etc are not going far enough to call out 2K, AND other outlets on this. I get the reluctance to start an internet hate mob...but they ought to do something IMHO
Yep, I love everyone blaming 2K like gearbox are paragons of virtueSo because they did their job as journalists and talked about 2K's pedo magician embarrassment that is Randy Pitchford, they get blacklisted?
only the highest quality games get reviewed at GB.
It's not a 'free game' it's a tool used to provide coverage. This is just a really stupid take that needs to stop.That's all lol. Giant Bomb aren't owed a free copy of the game, they can buy it just like I have to. Because they make videos for YouTube and have a popular podcast they're entitled to a free game? That's just not really how I choose to see it, I guess.
Paying an outlet for a good score is manipulative. Denying the means to review the game in time to an outlet you feel is going to score the game poorly is just as manipulative. Don't worry, they're gonna get their free copy. Just after it's too late to cancel preorders.I guess I would label something like PAYING an outlet to give a positive score as "manipulating review scores", not denying one indie outlet a free copy of the game.
But fair enough, I guess I just don't fit into this thread. Ima bounce.
That's all lol. Giant Bomb aren't owed a free copy of the game, they can buy it just like I have to. Because they make videos for YouTube and have a popular podcast they're entitled to a free game? That's just not really how I choose to see it, I guess. And I 100% stand by the second part of that dude's comment, that people seemingly want this game to do bad because Randy Pitchford has been making stupid decisions - but he's not the only person at Gearbox, and Borderlands 3 looks like it'll be as much fun as the first two - that's all. I only got more defensive when someone compared denying a small outlet a free video game to a fascist government denying news coverage to media outlets...
99% of people don't know who Pitchford is. 99% of those who have heard of his name before don't know how much of a creep he is.
Randy Pitchford is mostly a resetera monster. Sales of this game will be fine. It'll eat RE2, DMC5 and Sekiro for breakfast. (or any other ERA popular GOTY candidate this year) Probably even with some of thoses games combined.
I guess I would label something like PAYING an outlet to give a positive score as "manipulating review scores", not denying one indie outlet a free copy of the game.
But fair enough, I guess I just don't fit into this thread. Ima bounce.
I am still in the camp that denying a highly vocal (and critical) group (GB) does more to increase publicity then if they were given a review copy so that they can discuss it on a podcast.If the reviews didn't matter, there would be no reason to duck them. Even a bad review is basically free advertising in terms of increasing awareness of your product, the release date, and just ensuring that potential customers are saturated with news about it in the run-up to release. You would never turn down a chance at free publicity unless you were explicitly concerned about the risks negative publicity would pose.
This feels more likely based upon the limited understanding I have of Pitchford as a person.If this happened because Pitchford was felt personally attacked I'd actually find that a fair reason compared to gaming the metacritic.
Let's be realistic, it's going to sell a ton on PC as well. All the EGS stuff is as much confined to places like resetera when it comes to deciding whether people buy or not as the Pitchford stuff is.It'll do great on consoles if performance is good imo. PC is a lost cause due to EGS.
Let's be realistic, it's going to sell a ton on PC as well. All the EGS stuff is as much confined to places like resetera when it comes to deciding whether people buy or not as the Pitchford stuff is.
Borderlands 3 will be in illustrious company.only the highest quality games get reviewed at GB.
This year reviews consist entirely of:
I dont see fans of those shows complaining the critics didnt get to see it early.TV shows get sent early to tv show reviewers
Movie reviewers go to early screenings.
Like what the actual fuck are you talking about?
Point me to a notable reviewer being told they were going to be singled out and not sent a copy because they weren't shilling said product. That happens a whole lot less in those industries.I dont see fans of those shows complaining the critics didnt get to see it early.
Same goes for music.
? :
What is the first controlled review event that you can remember hearing about?
I dont see fans of those shows complaining the critics didnt get to see it early.
Same goes for music.
Point me to a notable reviewer being told they were going to be singled out and not sent a copy because they weren't shilling said product. That happens a whole lot less in those industries.
Sorry, I think that's more because nobody cares about music reviews tbh.This happens all of the time in music. I work in this industry. You just don't hear about it because music fans aren't obsessed with Metacritic scores like gamers are. Nobody cares what score The Guardian gave to the new Foo Fighters record or what Metacritic score the last Chvrches record got. I've worked on record releases for over ten years and nobody has ever talked to me about Metacritic scores.
But you can guarantee that when review copies are sent out they're not sent to the guy that gave the last record one out of five and insulted the singers wife.
I don't think so? People in the thread have complained, but it's pretty clear that GB themselves did not. They disclosed what happened pretty calmly and explained that while all of those pieces individually aren't super uncommon, they add up to be a bit of a shit situation. Happy?Are people still claiming that Giant Bomb complained about not getting a copy, when they were just addressing how they were approached about the situation in contrast to other sites that didn't get keys?
That is definitely not the case. People care about music reviews.Sorry, I think that's more because nobody cares about music reviews tbh.
Sorry, I think that's more because nobody cares about music reviews tbh.
Oh almost surely, I meant it mostly as a tongue in cheek joke, because I've literally never heard anyone speak about music reviews. I imagine when you run across, say, a film that snubs a major reviewer it's much more of an issue however, because film reviews are highly publicized and expected parts of consuming that media, just like games. Ultimately, to most of the audience they don't matter much, but I think for the core audience it's certainly an expectation that this stuff is sent to everyone or no one.Agreed. The two industries are so different. We watch content, like giant bombs, as fans because it's entertainment. I'm a giant bomb premium subscriber and have been since day one, and I've been really excited to hear the teams opinions (and video content) surrounding borderlands. There is no comparison to that in the music industry.
I'm simply disputing the fact that this behaviour (blacklisting and sending to favourable reviews) doesn't happen in the music industry. If anything i would guess it's much more common.
hell yeah i too hate independent press and love the taste of bootsI didn't say it had nothing to do with the review scores, I just said I wouldn't label it as "manipulating review scores". Yes it seems they're being selective with who gets to review the game for these reasons specifically, at least in this one instance that we've heard about.
I also didn't deny that it seems they denied GB a copy of the game because they were being too negative...did you read my posts at all?
I was originally responded to because I just agreed with another poster who said:
Me personally, I dont really feel bad for reviewers not getting a copy of the game early. I dont know any other industry that would complain about critics selectively not getting a early show of something. Shady or not , If its my product i can show it to who i want right?
Wanting this game to do bad just because the PR department at 2k is kind of shitty. A lot of good devs probably worked hard on the title.
That's all lol. Giant Bomb aren't owed a free copy of the game, they can buy it just like I have to. Because they make videos for YouTube and have a popular podcast they're entitled to a free game? That's just not really how I choose to see it, I guess. And I 100% stand by the second part of that dude's comment, that people seemingly want this game to do bad because Randy Pitchford has been making stupid decisions - but he's not the only person at Gearbox, and Borderlands 3 looks like it'll be as much fun as the first two - that's all. I only got more defensive when someone compared denying a small outlet a free video game to a fascist government denying news coverage to media outlets...
It shouldn't, but it will, even Jim Sterling said as much, there's just too much fuckery to isolate.I am legit curious in seeing how the the metacritic score changes once the rest of the critics are able to review and post them up. Like will 2K actions, even unwittingly have a negative effect on them, it stays the same or the other critics have a worse time with the game then with the early version the first batch got.