Are review embargoes anti-consumer?
This is a question that, in light of some devastatingly broken releases, has been brought to the forefront of video game fans’ minds. There are a number of reasons for arguing that the answer to the aforementioned question is a resounding yes; game publishers virtually begging consumers to pre-order their product and the perceived secrecy of withholding reviews.
However, when a review embargo is handled well, it is actually more pro-consumer than having no embargo at all. There is no arguing the pure anti-consumer effects of a post-release embargo like Assassin’s Creed Unity had (expiring at noon the day of release), but there are a number of reasons that benefit both the consumer and the publisher when it comes to embargoes. Here are three reasons that a well-done embargo isn’t such a bad thing.
Time to Complete the Game
Speed is the name of the game when it comes to releasing relevant content for an outlet. Whether it is releasing a review or breaking a news story, there is a substantial amount of payoff for being first. However, often when speed is involved, inaccuracy and a lack of thoroughness can be found. This is also true when it comes to reviewing games.
Embargoes are often set in such a way to provide adequate time for a reviewer to play at least a significant portion of the game before putting the pen to paper and giving their thoughts. This helps safeguard against reviewers who get the game and, in the spirit of expediency, put together a half-baked review just to say they were the first to publish.
In this way, the embargo acts as an incredibly pro-consumer construct by not incentivizing reviewers who are attempting to cut corners to get their review out ahead of everyone else. Even though this doesn’t completely stop someone from putting a couple hours into a game as long as say, The Witcher 3, and speaking on it definitively, it does allow readers to have plenty of options to discern who didn’t give the game its due diligence.
Conversely, the embargo could give a reviewer adequate time to uncover a bug that may not affect the game until 20 or 30 hours in. This is something that may not have been discovered had a reviewer only been able to give a few hours with the game before writing.
Playing with Live Servers
It’s no secret that plenty of games are shipping with online components from online PvP matchmaking, persistent worlds, and even an element as simple as leaderboards. These features add layers of complexity when it comes to a game running smoothly.
For instance, a game such as Halo: Master Chief Collection relied heavily on handling a large number of users flooding the servers at one time. Its ability to do so was only fully realized once the game had launched, affecting nearly every user who attempted to play the multiplayer component of the game. While many rely on the reputation of the company making the game when purchasing an online-dependent title, 343i wasn’t a company known for launching games in such a broken state. Embargoes that require outlets to publish reviews only after critical online components can be properly assessed can prevent similar mishaps.
Of course, there is no perfect solution to this issue. Companies tend to be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Embargoing an outlet from publishing a review until the game launches to the public can be perceived as the company attempting to hide something from those looking to pick it up at launch. If the embargo lifts prior to launch and the servers have been turned on several days prior, the reviewers and lucky few who receive the game early in no way stress test the online components. There is still no way for outlets to know how servers will hold up when they are inundated with new users, and both reviewers and consumers should always keep this in mind.
Mass Publicity
The fact still remains that reviews are pivotal to the marketing roadmap of a publisher. These opinion pieces play an important — if varied — role across the development process. For the publisher, they are an indication of how the game will be viewed across the larger potential audience. For the developer, they provide necessary feedback on how their game’s mechanics, aesthetics, and narrative are being received by fans. For the outlet, reviews generate the coveted visitors that help them keep the lights on. Finally, for consumers, reviews are a way of getting a glimpse of a game before purchasing it.
Specifically for the publisher, the embargo date is important marketing in and of itself. For an entire day, their game will appear on the front page of every major and mid-tier media outlet, and the consumer has the ability to compare and contrast multiple reviews at the same time to see if everyone is coming to the same conclusion. While this prospect may seem like mass chaos, it is actually quite beneficial for everyone involved in the process.
This mass publicity can be make-or-break for a game, and that makes it extremely pro-consumer. If the game is critically well-received, it may motivate those on the fence about it to purchase it, thus incentivizing the company to keep making quality games. If the game doesn’t review well and low scores go up across the internet in mass, it will lower sales and dictate the future direction of that title.
A well-timed embargo looks different depending on the game, but if they are done well, it can protect and inform the consumer. Do you think embargoes are pro or anti-consumer? Should outlets be allowed to publish a review or gameplay video whenever they want? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Check Out More
- 5 Games Perfect for Quantum Break’s TV Show Setup
- What Rogue One’s Trailer Could Say About the Movie
- Quantum Break Isn’t Xbox One’s The Last of Us, it’s Infamous
About the author
