Any word on review embargo?

[AdMeliora]

Was this discussed somewhere Shtalkers? When can we expect reviews?

[Flickmann]

There's a review embargo? That almost always means they have something to hide. Dud incoming.

[Panther]

Same boring questions on repeat, search bar exists guys

[piet11111]

Discord ask GSC channel said that information is under NDA.

[AdMeliora]

Originally posted by Panther:

Same boring questions on repeat, search bar exists guys

Ooh I see, you're the gramps around here, been walking the land day and night and moderating what people ask by saying go search. Well I got one for you, go touch grass. I don't hang around here like you no-life sweats cause I got a life and little time to go and 'search' I asked here cause this is a forum.

[AdMeliora]

Originally posted by piet11111:

Discord ask GSC channel said that information is under NDA.

See, thanks bro

[GlowWorm]

Originally posted by Flickmann:

There's a review embargo? That almost always means they have something to hide. Dud incoming.

No, that is not how it works.

The problem occurs when no reviews are allowed to be published before the release date. When that happens, it is indicative that the publisher thinks the title has serious problems, and the publisher wants to delay the visibility of those problems until the initial surge of orders happens at release.

For a good, healthy released game, there is a review embargo to allow reviewers to work for often more than a week with the title, doing game and performance reviews. Those reviews are under embargo and can't be published until typically 24 or 48 hours before the game is publicly released. By keeping the embargo in-place, the publisher helps all of the reviewers do complete reviews, because they are not competing with each other to rush out a review first - they all have enough time, and none of them can publish before the date that the embargo is lifted.

Further, the publishers know that if there is a long dribble of reviews before the game is released, interest will peak but then subside before the release date, as people get bored because they can see the reviews but they can't play the game. The publisher maximizes game sales by having the reviews come out a day or two before the game releases.

[AdMeliora]

Originally posted by LadyVodka:

Monday

Ooh thanks a lot! It can't come soon enough

[Panther]

Originally posted by AdMeliora:

Originally posted by Panther:

Same boring questions on repeat, search bar exists guys

Ooh I see, you're the gramps around here, been walking the land day and night and moderating what people ask by saying go search. Well I got one for you, go touch grass. I don't hang around here like you no-life sweats cause I got a life and little time to go and 'search' I asked here cause this is a forum.

Good suggestion, almost as good as using the search bar for something that's been asked and answered a dozen times.

[Flickmann]

Originally posted by GlowWorm:

Originally posted by Flickmann:

There's a review embargo? That almost always means they have something to hide. Dud incoming.

No, that is not how it works.

The problem occurs when no reviews are allowed to be published before the release date. When that happens, it is indicative that the publisher thinks the title has serious problems, and the publisher wants to delay the visibility of those problems until the initial surge of orders happens at release.

For a good, healthy released game, there is a review embargo to allow reviewers to work for often more than a week with the title, doing game and performance reviews. Those reviews are under embargo and can't be published until typically 24 or 48 hours before the game is publicly released. By keeping the embargo in-place, the publisher helps all of the reviewers do complete reviews, because they are not competing with each other to rush out a review first - they all have enough time, and none of them can publish before the date that the embargo is lifted.

Further, the publishers know that if there is a long dribble of reviews before the game is released, interest will peak but then subside before the release date, as people get bored because they can see the reviews but they can't play the game. The publisher maximizes game sales by having the reviews come out a day or two before the game releases.

Lol, I bet you actually believe this drivel. Huff that copium.

[GlowWorm]

Originally posted by Flickmann:

Originally posted by GlowWorm:

No, that is not how it works.

The problem occurs when no reviews are allowed to be published before the release date. When that happens, it is indicative that the publisher thinks the title has serious problems, and the publisher wants to delay the visibility of those problems until the initial surge of orders happens at release.

For a good, healthy released game, there is a review embargo to allow reviewers to work for often more than a week with the title, doing game and performance reviews. Those reviews are under embargo and can't be published until typically 24 or 48 hours before the game is publicly released. By keeping the embargo in-place, the publisher helps all of the reviewers do complete reviews, because they are not competing with each other to rush out a review first - they all have enough time, and none of them can publish before the date that the embargo is lifted.

Further, the publishers know that if there is a long dribble of reviews before the game is released, interest will peak but then subside before the release date, as people get bored because they can see the reviews but they can't play the game. The publisher maximizes game sales by having the reviews come out a day or two before the game releases.

Lol, I bet you actually believe this drivel. Huff that copium.

Oh, look, somebody who doesn't actually pay attention to how reviews come out for ALL of the large titles. Hint: For some strange reason, reviews for large titles are all released simultaneously by multiple reviewers, magically a couple of days before the game is released. It's almost as if somebody is coordinating the release of reviews from behind the scenes.

[Donte]

Originally posted by Flickmann:

There's a review embargo? That almost always means they have something to hide. Dud incoming.

every game has review embargo lmao

[Ω]

Originally posted by AdMeliora:

Originally posted by Panther:

Same boring questions on repeat, search bar exists guys

Ooh I see, you're the gramps around here, been walking the land day and night and moderating what people ask by saying go search. Well I got one for you, go touch grass. I don't hang around here like you no-life sweats cause I got a life and little time to go and 'search' I asked here cause this is a forum.

Now that is a verbal beatdown.

[Foxrun]

Originally posted by Flickmann:

Originally posted by GlowWorm:

No, that is not how it works.

The problem occurs when no reviews are allowed to be published before the release date. When that happens, it is indicative that the publisher thinks the title has serious problems, and the publisher wants to delay the visibility of those problems until the initial surge of orders happens at release.

For a good, healthy released game, there is a review embargo to allow reviewers to work for often more than a week with the title, doing game and performance reviews. Those reviews are under embargo and can't be published until typically 24 or 48 hours before the game is publicly released. By keeping the embargo in-place, the publisher helps all of the reviewers do complete reviews, because they are not competing with each other to rush out a review first - they all have enough time, and none of them can publish before the date that the embargo is lifted.

Further, the publishers know that if there is a long dribble of reviews before the game is released, interest will peak but then subside before the release date, as people get bored because they can see the reviews but they can't play the game. The publisher maximizes game sales by having the reviews come out a day or two before the game releases.

Lol, I bet you actually believe this drivel. Huff that copium.

An incel's delight

[Beermachine]

Originally posted by GlowWorm:

Originally posted by Flickmann:

There's a review embargo? That almost always means they have something to hide. Dud incoming.

No, that is not how it works.

The problem occurs when no reviews are allowed to be published before the release date. When that happens, it is indicative that the publisher thinks the title has serious problems, and the publisher wants to delay the visibility of those problems until the initial surge of orders happens at release.

For a good, healthy released game, there is a review embargo to allow reviewers to work for often more than a week with the title, doing game and performance reviews. Those reviews are under embargo and can't be published until typically 24 or 48 hours before the game is publicly released. By keeping the embargo in-place, the publisher helps all of the reviewers do complete reviews, because they are not competing with each other to rush out a review first - they all have enough time, and none of them can publish before the date that the embargo is lifted.

Further, the publishers know that if there is a long dribble of reviews before the game is released, interest will peak but then subside before the release date, as people get bored because they can see the reviews but they can't play the game. The publisher maximizes game sales by having the reviews come out a day or two before the game releases.

While you make valid points regarding the reasoning for review embargo's before release, there is another side to this story.

Many publishers require pre-release reviews to be submitted to the publisher before they can be published so they adhere to strict NDA agreements that limit criticism of the game. This is especially true in regards to bugs and performance issues which are claimed the release patch fixes (and more often than not don't).

I could go on at length at all the shady practices that big publishers have used to manipulate reviews, gaming journalism and consumers but this would turn into an essay. Not saying that GSC are employing any of these, and given their size and self publishing are likely not, but healthy skepticism is a good approach especially given the amount of money involved now-a-days in the gaming industry.

Personally I'm much more skeptical of pre-release reviews given that it's common sense from a commercial standpoint for a company to select journalists / youtubers for pre-release copies who are more inclined to give positive reviews and gloss over any negatives. This is a problem across pretty much all fields of journalism in the world, and referred to as access journalism, client journalism, etc. While it's much more endemic amongst large corporate publishers with a regular pipeline of games, smaller ones still benefit from it.

[AdMeliora]

Originally posted by Beermachine:

Originally posted by GlowWorm:

No, that is not how it works.

The problem occurs when no reviews are allowed to be published before the release date. When that happens, it is indicative that the publisher thinks the title has serious problems, and the publisher wants to delay the visibility of those problems until the initial surge of orders happens at release.

For a good, healthy released game, there is a review embargo to allow reviewers to work for often more than a week with the title, doing game and performance reviews. Those reviews are under embargo and can't be published until typically 24 or 48 hours before the game is publicly released. By keeping the embargo in-place, the publisher helps all of the reviewers do complete reviews, because they are not competing with each other to rush out a review first - they all have enough time, and none of them can publish before the date that the embargo is lifted.

Further, the publishers know that if there is a long dribble of reviews before the game is released, interest will peak but then subside before the release date, as people get bored because they can see the reviews but they can't play the game. The publisher maximizes game sales by having the reviews come out a day or two before the game releases.

While you make valid points regarding the reasoning for review embargo's before release, there is another side to this story.

Many publishers require pre-release reviews to be submitted to the publisher before they can be published so they adhere to strict NDA agreements that limit criticism of the game. This is especially true in regards to bugs and performance issues which are claimed the release patch fixes (and more often than not don't).

I could go on at length at all the shady practices that big publishers have used to manipulate reviews, gaming journalism and consumers but this would turn into an essay. Not saying that GSC are employing any of these, and given their size and self publishing are likely not, but healthy skepticism is a good approach especially given the amount of money involved now-a-days in the gaming industry.

Personally I'm much more skeptical of pre-release reviews given that it's common sense from a commercial standpoint for a company to select journalists / youtubers for pre-release copies who are more inclined to give positive reviews and gloss over any negatives. This is a problem across pretty much all fields of journalism in the world, and referred to as access journalism, client journalism, etc. While it's much more endemic amongst large corporate publishers with a regular pipeline of games, smaller ones still benefit from it.

Couldn't have worded better