jawa asks... Should game publishers provide copies to media outlets for their reviews?

Should game publishers provide copies to media outlets for their reviews?

Years ago - I'm talking about the 80s and 90s - game publishers sent copies of new titles to a range of game magazines for the purpose of undertaking a review. Of course, in the years since then, the amount and variety of other gaming review outlets has significantly expanded and changed; many games may see up to a hundred reviews today from reasonably large outlets; with many more reviews published online by smaller entities, too.

I could imagine it has become a tough decision for publishers now. Obviously they need publicity and online talk to help promote their game; and, naturally, they'd prefer the perceptions to be positive and not negative.

I have always "sided" with the media outlets before in feeling that they should get a copy for review and that, where they don't, it raises red flags.

But... my thinking has slightly altered. Reading an article in Eurogamer about the new Suicide Squad game, I wondered if there was a sense of entitlement; that the author felt that Eurogamer must always be provided with copies of games for review. Eurogamer is a big media outlet; could they have not bought a copy of the game if they were that concerned about their readers missing out on their review?

Tl;dr Pleae select the vote option that ties up with your thinking and then state your assessment in the comments.

Last edited by rinks on Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is no “should”. Publishers are free to send review copies to whoever they like. Media outlets are free to refuse to review if they don’t get a copy. And the public are free to read whichever sites they like. All just how it should be (<- that’s the only should.)

It seems foolish not to send a copy to a major site like Eurogamer. Then it also seems churlish of Eurogamer to refuse coverage as a result (EDIT: If that is what they are doing.) And as a consumer, it puts me off Eurogamer more than the publisher.

Without demos or free trials / refunds then the only way to get an insight into if something is good is through a review. No good game hides from a reviewer, even the most spoiler filled game can be protected by a review embargo.

rinks wrote:There is no “should”. Publishers are free to send review copies to whoever they like. Media outlets are free to refuse to review if they don’t get a copy. And the public are free to read whichever sites they like. All just how it should be (<- that’s the only should.)

I agree with all of this, rinks!

Whenever I write a jawa asks, I am sure to include wording and options that I don't necessarily agree with; it's not necessarily my opinion. I do this to enable people with different opinons to have the ability to lodge their view - and to challenge things, which you have done here :-).

rinks wrote:There is no “should”. Publishers are free to send review copies to whoever they like. Media outlets are free to refuse to review if they don’t get a copy. And the public are free to read whichever sites they like. All just how it should be (<- that’s the only should.)

It seems foolish not to send a copy to a major site like Eurogamer. Then it also seems churlish of Eurogamer to refuse coverage as a result (EDIT: If that is what they are doing.) And as a consumer, it puts me off Eurogamer more than the publisher.

They're not refusing coverage though. They still plan to review it, this is what they've said, which doesn't sound unreasonable in my opinion:

Hello! It's that time again - I promise to keep it brief. Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League's servers are now live for early access players here in the UK, but we won't have a review for you here on the site today - or indeed on the game's full launch this coming Friday 2nd February.

This is because its publisher, Warner Bros., is only sending out review code today. As far as we know, this isn't a case of Eurogamer being singled out or otherwise treated differently to the many other sites or channels that plan to review the game. It's just that the publisher has decided to send out code after the game has gone live, rather than in advance - something that happens from time to time, albeit rarely a full 24 hours after it's been playable in some parts of the world.

There are the usual caveats to note here, of course, the most important being that as always, we are absolutely not entitled to early code. How many codes are handed out and when is entirely at the publisher's discretion - it's their game, they can handle access to it how they like. Instead, please just see this is another "PSA" to go along with similar ones we've published in the past in similar situations, such as those for games like No Man's Sky, Watch Dogs 2, Borderlands 3, Cyberpunk 2077 or most recently, Starfield.

We'll do our best to bring you a full review in a timely fashion - in the meantime, you can read Ed's detailed Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League preview, while our news and guides teams will be working as hard as ever to keep you abreast of everything else you might need to know.

Of course, you could argue they should have paid for Early Access but in this case it wouldn't have made much difference given the servers keep getting switched off :lol:

Oh yeah, my post wasn’t intended to be pointedly at you. Just my opinion, albeit written in such a way that reflects how I don’t think there’s really much up for debate.

Godzilla wrote:Without demos or free trials / refunds then the only way to get an insight into if something is good is through a review. No good game hides from a reviewer, even the most spoiler filled game can be protected by a review embargo.

Yeah, I am always keen to see reviews, Godzilla. I suspect that most game publishers want their games reviewed as it's effectively free publicity and seen by their target audience. It must be tricky when reviews ain't good, though!

I'm a little cautious nowdays as, with the increasing size of the industry, you sometimes get scenarios of reviewers being flown out to luxurious/exciting places to see games, and I do wonder of this may affect opinions. Equally, I'm wary of people on Twitter posting stuff about games that they have been sponsored to do so by the publishers. Even some seemingly very small X/Twitter accounts that I follow sometimes post about games when the publisher has provided stuff to them, and there is often no mention of this in the X/Tweet.

Tomous wrote:They're not refusing coverage though.

Why I edited in the “If…”

My reply was meant to be more general, rather than specifically about this case.

The people who shouldn't get review copies are YouTubers/streamers/influencers. Sitting in front of a camera playing video games all day should not be further rewarded by giving them early access and free stuff.

Knoyleo wrote:The people who shouldn't get review copies are YouTubers/streamers/influencers. Sitting in front of a camera playing video games all day should not be further rewarded by giving them early access and free stuff.

I dunno... if they have become successful in doing streaming/influencing as a job, I'd imagine they have quite a large audience that'd attract publishers?

But, yes, I do certainly agree in one aspect - as I mentioned above, when streamers/influencers promote stuff without indicating that they have been paid/gifted to do so.

jawa_ wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:The people who shouldn't get review copies are YouTubers/streamers/influencers. Sitting in front of a camera playing video games all day should not be further rewarded by giving them early access and free stuff.

I dunno... if they have become successful in doing streaming/influencing as a job, I'd imagine they have quite a large audience that'd attract publishers?

But, yes, I do certainly agree in one aspect - as I mentioned above, when streamers/influencers promote stuff without indicating that they have been paid/gifted to do so.

It does attract publishers, but that just makes them marketing tools, which is also bad. These people aren't journalists, they get given games to puff them up, not critique. Not that journalists and other published outlets haven't been swayed to inflate games scores either, but assorted individuals with webcams are an even less reliable pool to source honest criticism from. People also don't form parasocial relationships with IGN or Eurogamer like they do with x_X_H4rdc0r3_G4ymer_69_X_x on twitch or whatever, that also makes them fat more susceptible to whatever gooseberry fool they're shovelling without declaring a financial interest.

Knoyleo wrote:It does attract publishers, but that just makes them marketing tools, which is also bad. These people aren't journalists, they get given games to puff them up, not critique. Not that journalists and other published outlets haven't been swayed to inflate games scores either, but assorted individuals with webcams are an even less reliable pool to source honest criticism from. People also don't form parasocial relationships with IGN or Eurogamer like they do with x_X_H4rdc0r3_G4ymer_69_X_x on twitch or whatever, that also makes them fat more susceptible to whatever gooseberry fool they're shovelling without declaring a financial interest.

Yes, I'm personally more wary of the smaller reviewer/influencer opinions because of this scenario. I very much admire YouTubers such as ACG, though - I understand that he always pays to buy a game himself, even if the publisher has already given him a copy/code.

Knoyleo wrote:
jawa_ wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:The people who shouldn't get review copies are YouTubers/streamers/influencers. Sitting in front of a camera playing video games all day should not be further rewarded by giving them early access and free stuff.

I dunno... if they have become successful in doing streaming/influencing as a job, I'd imagine they have quite a large audience that'd attract publishers?

But, yes, I do certainly agree in one aspect - as I mentioned above, when streamers/influencers promote stuff without indicating that they have been paid/gifted to do so.

It does attract publishers, but that just makes them marketing tools, which is also bad. These people aren't journalists, they get given games to puff them up, not critique. Not that journalists and other published outlets haven't been swayed to inflate games scores either, but assorted individuals with webcams are an even less reliable pool to source honest criticism from. People also don't form parasocial relationships with IGN or Eurogamer like they do with x_X_H4rdc0r3_G4ymer_69_X_x on twitch or whatever, that also makes them fat more susceptible to whatever gooseberry fool they're shovelling without declaring a financial interest.

Yeah, totally agree. It's a straight up marketing tool but made really shady by the parasocial relationship.

Needs regulation.

Tomous wrote:...It's a straight up marketing tool but made really shady by the parasocial relationship.

Needs regulation.

I *think* that any X/Twitter posts or YouTube vids that are sponsored should clearly say this; but the challenge is that quite often these statements are not clear or not said/shown at all. As you say, Tomous, regulation of this should probably be a lot tougher.

I no longer trust some game reviews, I much prefer to trust fan reviews over critics which is one of the reasons I don't pre order anymore.

jawa asks... Should game publishers provide copies to media outlets for their reviews?

I think that game publishers should provide copies of all new games to...

Who is online

Affiliates