A Broken System Part 2: Review Embargoes

In this culture of pre-orders and broken games publishers are placing more stringent review embargoes on reviewers. What do you think, are review embargoes good or do they only serve to hurt consumers? How do we fix this issue?

Check the video for the full piece.

Full script

In my last video I talked about how broken games don’t always stay broken and the conundrum that it presents for reviewers and the industry in general. However that is merely a small aspect to why the entire system of gaming is broken. This time I want to focus on review embargoes and how they end up hurting the consumer.

So what is a review embargo? When a publisher releases a game they give review copies out to certain publications before hand, usually a few weeks before the release date to minimize leaks. This way the reviewers have a chance to publish their reviews on the release date or sometimes before that way consumers who plan on purchasing the game know what they’re in for before they pull the trigger. However this creates a double-edged sword for the publisher so they often times forbid the publication of reviews until a certain time, usually the day of release.

On one hand the early reviews can easily be a boon to sales, a game that reviews well is going to make people want to throw their money at the store to get a copy. When a reviewer has time to sit back and actually enjoy the game they’re more likely to write a thorough review that doesn’t skimp on details or rush past anything a consumer may find important. It also gets the consumer pumped for the game the may have not been anticipating otherwise.

On the other hand however from the publisher's perspective this can potentially be damaging. A bad review can easily derail any hype and can result in a loss of sales. A game that reviews poorly before or after launch is essentially doomed especially thanks to metacritic. Even if the game's issues are resolved down the line the damage is already done. This is the publisher’s biggest fear and it leads to embargoes on those reviews. However an embargo on reviews serves no one in the long run. So let’s break it down again to see how it affects everyone involved.

First the Reviewers. Reviewers held to an embargo are put in an almost impossible situation, especially with a bad game. They are given essentially two choices, neither being ideal. First they can break the embargo and warn the consumers. This is would seem like part of their duty as a games reviewer, however this means burning a bridge with the publisher, especially with a bad review, the publisher is unlikely to send review copies ever again. The other option is to follow the embargo, which ends up hurting the consumer and leads to distrust. There’s really no good option for a reviewer faced with an embargo. The reviewers are unlikely to forget the position that the publishers put them in.

The publishers actually end up hurting themselves in the long run without realizing it. The publishers put embargoes in place in their mind to avoid the damage that would come from poor reviews before launch. However all it ends up doing is creating an environment full of distrust with the blame placed squarely on them. The reviewers who are put in that tough position are unlikely to forget that feeling the next time they review a game from that publishers, regardless of if the game is actually good or not. In this day and age where almost anyone involved with gaming has access to the internet, they are likely to find out about the embargo. The reviewers poor feelings about the publishers are likely to be absorbed by the consumer. If the game ends up being poor it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, and the internet never forgets.

Which leaves us with the party most affected, the consumer. Consumers are the ones at the end of the day throwing down their hard earned money on the game. They expect a competent product. A review is a way for the consumer to decide if the game is truly worth that money especially in this culture of pre-orders. A pre-order is done in complete blind faith that the game will be worth it on day one. A consumer has the right to know if the game is broken or just not fun to play, before buying it. An embargo prevents this, some stores have a cancellation policy for pre-orders especially when promotional items are involved. Again this only serves to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the consumer which they won’t soon forget.

So what is the solution in this case? Embargoes aren’t always bad, they serve a purpose, mostly to prevent leaks of information, but often the reason behind their implementation is a bit more nefarious. The best solution, if a game does have an embargo would be for the embargo to be lifted at least a few days before release. As it stands, some embargoes aren’t lifted until the day of and sometimes that means late in the day after consumers already have copies. This is something that will never happen due to the fear of the publishers. The biggest issue is a game that is poorly received at launch or before has little chance of succeeding. That Metacritic score never goes away and doesn’t change, even if it should. This is something where unfortunately there is no good practical solution.

The reviewers are stuck between a rock and a hard place, the publishers are in a tough spot, and the consumers get screwed. The issue is the publishers put themselves in this spot by overworking developers and not giving them enough time to craft a proper working game, but that’s an issue for another day. As of now the whole system is still a broken mess, but it can be fixed, there is a way. The first step is bringing these issues to light.