You Are on Thin Ice, Bethesda

Sorry guys. I’m a bit late on uploading this here. Here it finally is if you were looking for it, enjoy!

You Are on Thin Ice, Bethesda

Andrew Harrington

On October 25th of 2016, Bethesda Softworks, creators of such classics as Skyrim and the Fallout series, announced that they will no longer be giving out early review copies for their upcoming games. Instead, they have decided to send copies out only a day prior to release, which isn’t nearly sufficient time to review a game in time for release. There have been a variety of different responses to this announcement ranging from anger to excitement and even smug satisfaction. This move is not only harmful for review sites, it’s harmful to the consumer and the gaming industry as a whole. Personally, I find this policy to be aggravating, and I’m not alone with this sentiment. However, I’ve seen plenty of comments from the public applauding their decision. Let’s look at how this hurts review sites, Bethesda, the consumer and finally other developers.

Here’s a little background. The current status quo in the video game industry has been as such: developers give out review copies of games prior to release. Reviewers then form and write reviews of the games, to publish them on or slightly before the game’s release date. In recent years, let’s players and other YouTube gaming personalities have also received copies early as a way of marketing games to specific YouTube communities. This allows for an informed gaming public to make decisions on whether to purchase games based on reviews and second hand experience. This is not an industry requirement though, and developers in the past have decided to opt out of this process by giving review copies after release dates of games, or not at all. Often times this has been a sign that the game’s quality might be lacking. This decision to not give out review copies can be a way for developers with potentially bad games to sell more copies on day one due to an uninformed public. For example, Mafia III was just released, and developer 2K decided not send out early review copies. Many people had faith that the game would be stellar, and yet, were rewarded with a mediocre overall experience. While the game had a great story, it’s gameplay was dull and bugs ran rampant. Despite the game’s missteps, it’s selling well. Some of this success can most likely be attributed to a lack of day one reviews.

No Man’s Sky is another example of this shady practice. Hello Games promised more than would be possible with huge team, let alone their team of nineteen. The game sold incredibly well, but had no reviews on day one. No Man’s Sky was not what people were hoping for and players were not happy. The game now has mostly negative reviews on Steam. Furthermore, reviews of this game have been less than stellar, with most outlets giving the game a score of six out of ten or less. The game may have sold less if reviews were out in time allowing customers to base their decision on critical opinions.

With all that being said, let’s look at how this hurts reviewers. Gaming news sites like IGN, Polygon, and Kotaku make their money by creating content for the general gaming audience. Along with other video features, opinion pieces, and gaming shows, reviews are a major source of income. Reviews of highly anticipated titles garner large quantities of views. For example, Kotaku’s review of Overwatch received over 180,000 views, according to their website. That’s a lot of people, and advertisers love seeing this kind of traffic. Companies advertise on these sites and, if they are advertising in the right place, will bring people to their own websites. The more people who visit a page, the more people who see these ads. These high unique website views and visits directly correlate to the review’s income. So when these reviews post late those numbers drop by a significant margin. People will buy Bethesda’s games without having seen a review, simply because there aren’t any. Similarly, if someone owns the game, they may not feel the need to look up a review. By keeping their games from being reviewed on time, Bethesda is taking away significant amounts of views to review sites and therefore cutting the amount of money these reviews are making.

Bethesda thinks holding their games will help them make more money, and it will, but only in the short term. Bethesda is counting on us to trust them. They want us to base our purchasing decisions on their excellent previous titles, and we can do that… to an extent. While I have faith that both Skyrim Special Edition and Dishonored 2 will be great games, what happens when they release a bad game? Bethesda is riding high after the warm reception of Skyrim, Dishonored, Wolfenstein, The Evil Within, Doom and Fallout 4. However, they are not a perfect company. They have published and developed bad games before. Anyone remember Brink? Brink was an online shooter that emphasized its unique parkour elements developed by Splash Damage. The game received a six out of ten from both IGN and Gamespot, with IGN’s review publishing a day prior to release. On Metacritic users rated it even lower. If you remember, this game had major hype. I was ready to buy it day one until I saw IGN’s review which spotlighted the game’s problems. Bugs plagued both the single and multiplayer modes, making it nearly impossible to play, and the game just wasn’t very fun. What happens when Bethesda releases another game like this, either from their own softworks, Arkane Studios or Id? Due to a lack of critical coverage on the games, they will sell incredibly well, but players won’t be happy. Sure, Bethesda will make their money, but how many people will come back for their next project?

Contrary to the beliefs spewed in their comments sections, reviews are pro consumer. They are made in order to help gamers decide what to spend their money on. They concisely tell us what a game was able to do well, and what it was missing. By giving us this comprehensive, full look at the game, they can help us spend our money wisely. Oddly enough, I have seen comments on videos reacting to to Bethesda’s new policy thanking and encouraging them. Guess what people, this hurts us! This only benefits Bethesda by allowing them to increase their monetary gain at the expense of their customers. People will buy Bethesda’s game regardless of a review due to the reputation they have created. However, they will continue to put out games that are buggy and potentially even broken on day one. Without a critical voice to keep Bethesda in line, the quality of their games will soon begin to decline. Why would they put in more effort if it’s not needed to make money? If Bethesda sticks to their guns, they will inevitably break the trust of their fans and have to gain it all back.

To smaller developers, reviews can be scary. They can be the deciding factor on whether your game sells or not. If a small studio with a low advertising budget releases an outstanding game, it can sell incredibly well due to positive reviews. We’ve seen this with both Shovel Knight and Axiom Verge, two of the best indie games of the past ten years. However, reviews can also utterly destroy the chances of success if the game is bad. These small studios may see what Bethesda is doing and, driven by fear of failure, choose to follow the same path. This could destroy that company, though. Small games that receive reviews will sell more than games without reviews, regardless of their score. If a game reviews poorly, people may still buy it out of morbid curiosity, or to see if they agree. While their game isn’t great, it gives them more money for their next project. If the review is late or nonexistent, their sales will be significantly lower. Bethesda may be able to make this work for the time being, but a smaller studio with less of a reputation can’t bank on those guaranteed sales.

What I don’t get is why Bethesda thinks this will make them more money in the long run. Bethesda has nothing to lose by giving out early review copies. They have some of the best games coming out now, and they want us to believe that this standard of quality will continue. Why wouldn’t they continue making their amazing games, receiving amazing scores, and thus seeing amazing sales? This seems like a weird misguided step that will ultimately harm their reputation. The only justification I can think of stems from Fallout 4. Fallout 4 reviewed very well, but was hurt a bit by the countless bugs in the game. Also, the fact that the game was painfully similar to Fallout 3 kept it from feeling revolutionary like we were expecting. Those problems with the game, however, were valid critiques and should have been examined rather than thrown aside. It seems like Bethesda can’t handle a bit of constructive criticism, so they’re trying to kill it altogether. We, as consumers, can’t allow this to happen for our own sake.

So what can we do to combat this destructive practice? Well, we can stop preordering their games. Other then a small, and I mean small, amount of extra content, what do preorders really do for us? The way I look at, preordering a game is a way of telling developers that we trust them. So what happens when they show us that they can’t be trusted? If you have a problem with Bethesda’s shady new policy, show them by waiting to buy their games until we know they’re worth the money.

Uploaded to Youtube on November 16th, 2016