William Usher: "Game Journalists Are Anti-Consumer, Not Bethesda"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Houseman:

Revnak:

So the burden of responsibility falls entirely on the consumer? How delightfully pro-consumer of you.

The responsibility for doing what, exactly? Making an informed decision? Hasn't that always been the burden of the consumer? Doesn't the consumer have to take it upon himself to seek out these reviews and decide whether or not a purchase is right for him, regardless of when these reviews come out?

So now you're just expecting every consumer to wait two or three weeks for reviews to come in, in contrast to how purchasing of all other products like this work? That's the responsibility you're expecting. That the entire audience of games will shift away from any typical standard of purchasing just for games because some games journalists hurt your feelings. Once again, how delightfully pro-consumer of you.

EDIT:

Houseman:

Windknight:

And what if the company is pushing pre-orders? Exclusive content you can only get by committing to buy BEFORE you can possibly be in any way informed as to any issues?

That, in itself, is an anti-consumer practice. It does not become suddenly bad when pre-reviews are disallowed.

And it doesn't become any worse once it becomes impossible for you to cancel that pre-order if the game turns out to be horrific? Not even a little bit?

Houseman:
Early reviews are privileges, not rights.

Titanfall 2 was released to the public on October 28th. Its now November 3rd: and my favourite reviewer, Jim Sterling has only just released his review of the game.

Jim isn't on the list of "favoured reviewers" and EA is no longer sending him review copies. But EA is still sending review copies to games journalists. They pick and choose which reviewers get review copies: and they choose those reviewers based on who are more likely to give them positive reviews.

So we are now at the stage where the publisher can control the narrative. They are sending out review copies to friendly outlets knowing they will get only positive reviews at launch. This, astonishing enough, isn't regarded by many as consumer friendly move. People won't wait until their favourite reviewers review the game. Because their isn't a guarantee their favourite reviewer will review the game under this new paradigm. Sterling nearly didn't review Titanfall.

So publishers are picking and choosing reviewers that will likely give them positive reviews and positive buzz. And some reviewers will give them positive buzz and positive reviews in exchange for early access to review copies, which will mean "more eyes on the review" for the reviewer and bigger and greater advertising revenues.

You are correct. Reviewers do not have the "right" to expect early access to games to review. But don't let this confuse you. The people who "win out" here are not the ethical games journalists who reviewed games on their merits and will give us their honest opinion. The winners are the un-ethical games journalists who pander to the games companies who will give them high scores and favourable reviews regardless of merit. This goes against everything that gamergate was allegedly about: and it boggles the mind that many people who support gamergate also support this move by the gaming industry. If you are fighting for better "ethics in games journalism" then you should be in favour of games journalists getting early review copies: even if you personally don't like the reviewer. To do otherwise just doesn't make any sense.

Houseman:

Avnger:

More information provided to consumers regarding the products being sold is never a bad thing.

The journalists are supposed to be the ones providing consumers with information. They still can, but they'll actually have to buy the game now, at least from Bethesda. I still don't see the problem.

Cheering for this move

Who's cheering?

GG is again taking the stance (as with Operation Disrespectful Nod) that they know whats best for the rest of the gaming world. In this case, it's supporting this decision

Says who? Do you have any evidence that "GG" supports this decision?

If the problem is that "the pro-consumer stance of getting reviews early" is not being stood for, that's not a stance, it's a privilege. Nobody is under any obligation to get anything for free. Nobody is under any obligation to get anything early. Consumers are not entitled to receive a pre-release review. It's nice, sure, but it's a privilege.

They don't have to buy it. They still get free copies.

Revnak:

So now you're just expecting every consumer to wait two or three weeks for reviews to come in, in contrast to how purchasing of all other products like this work? That's the responsibility you're expecting.

The only thing that has changed is the time it takes to find reviews for a game. The "burden" of responsibility to seek out reviews before making a purchase has not changed, only the timeline has changed.

I don't see your issue, other than being slightly inconvenienced over having to wait a bit.

That the entire audience of games will shift away from any typical standard of purchasing just for games because some games journalists hurt your feelings.

Bethesda decided it, not me, so I don't know why you're trying to make it seem like I'm the one responsible for whatever it is you have a problem with.

You haven't even claimed that this is "a bad thing", just that it's different from what everyone else does. Something being different doesn't make it bad.

"We don't like what we don't understand, in fact we fear it" - Lyrics from the song "Kill the beast" from Beauty and the Beast

And it doesn't become any worse once it becomes impossible for you to cancel that pre-order if the game turns out to be horrific? Not even a little bit?

Nope. The privilege of pre-release reviews is not a laurel to be rested upon. Any who relies on such a thing when pre-ordering places their faith in the wrong place.

nomotog:

They don't have to buy it. They still get free copies.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

starbear:

Titanfall 2 was released to the public on October 28th. Its now November 3rd: and my favourite reviewer, Jim Sterling has only just released his review of the game.

Jim isn't on the list of "favoured reviewers" and EA is no longer sending him review copies. But EA is still sending review copies to games journalists. They pick and choose which reviewers get review copies: and they choose those reviewers based on who are more likely to give them positive reviews.

So we are now at the stage where the publisher can control the narrative.

That's EA, though. This topic is about Bethesda. Different issues.

Houseman:

nomotog:

They don't have to buy it. They still get free copies.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

starbear:

Titanfall 2 was released to the public on October 28th. Its now November 3rd: and my favourite reviewer, Jim Sterling has only just released his review of the game.

Jim isn't on the list of "favoured reviewers" and EA is no longer sending him review copies. But EA is still sending review copies to games journalists. They pick and choose which reviewers get review copies: and they choose those reviewers based on who are more likely to give them positive reviews.

So we are now at the stage where the publisher can control the narrative.

That's EA, though. This topic is about Bethesda. Different issues.

If you didn't know what was happening, why jump in and act like you do.

StatusNil:

erttheking:
I wanted to buy Dishonored 2 early, but I wanted an informed opinion and now I have to wait.

I can tell you right now that the "informed opinion" is going to be that Dishonored 2 is just super. Cara Ellison is "working on the story" after all. Unless she got fired, in which case it's deeply problematic.

You're welcome.

You choose to not reply to the majority of my post and instead just make a four sentence sarcastic reply. One that doesn't really make a point since not all journalists march in lockstep.

If you don't have anything to say, let me know early on so I don't waste my time.

nomotog:

If you didn't know what was happening, why jump in and act like you do.

I was mistaken about a minor detail. Knowledge of this minor detail does not affect any of my arguments, or any of the arguments from the opposition. I would still like to think that I, in a general sense, "know what is happening".

Houseman:

Revnak:

So now you're just expecting every consumer to wait two or three weeks for reviews to come in, in contrast to how purchasing of all other products like this work? That's the responsibility you're expecting.

The only thing that has changed is the time it takes to find reviews for a game. The "burden" of responsibility to seek out reviews before making a purchase has not changed, only the timeline has changed.

I don't see your issue, other than being slightly inconvenienced over having to wait a bit.

Waiting an additional week for no goddamn reason is kinda more than a slight inconvenience.

That the entire audience of games will shift away from any typical standard of purchasing just for games because some games journalists hurt your feelings.

Bethesda decided it, not me, so I don't know why you're trying to make it seem like I'm the one responsible for whatever it is you have a problem with.

You haven't even claimed that this is "a bad thing", just that it's different from what everyone else does. Something being different doesn't make it bad.

You're defending them and agreeing with the guy that is defending them. Take some goddamn responsibility for what you argue for.

A game that stabs me in the eye upon launch is also "different." What they are doing is definitively worse for the consumer than letting reviewers have early access to the game and putting the review embargo a week or so before launch. There is no argument to be had. That's not just "different," just like releasing a game that only runs if I pay a blood sacrifice is not just "different." It is markedly worse.

"We don't like what we don't understand, in fact we fear it" - Lyrics from the song "Kill the beast" from Beauty and the Beast

I am sorry I do not have enough faith in our corporate overlords to just believe that what they are doing is for the best when by all appearances it is leading to a worse scenario for me and consumers like me.

And it doesn't become any worse once it becomes impossible for you to cancel that pre-order if the game turns out to be horrific? Not even a little bit?

Nope. The privilege of pre-release reviews is not a laurel to be rested upon. Any who relies on such a thing when pre-ordering places their faith in the wrong place.

I refuse to fall prey to the wild west willies and post my original, for more sarcastic response, so I'll go with this.

Why the fuck shouldn't people rely on that when it has been the standard for companies in this and other industries for decades, including Bethesda until recently?

Revnak:

Waiting an additional week for no goddamn reason is kinda more than a slight inconvenience.

It's not necessarily an "additional week". Review copies are sent out one day before release. The time you wait depends on how fast your particular review takes.

But whether or not this is an inconvenience is irrelevant. The question is, is it "anti-consumer?"
Is it anti-consumer to delay the shipment of a privilege?

You're defending them

No I'm not. I'm attacking your claim that I'm not standing up for "pro-consumer" positions. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I agree with them.

What they are doing is definitively worse for the consumer

Not giving away free stuff is also definitively worse for the consumer, but it doesn't mean that not doing so is anti-consumer. Your argument seems to be "it's worse, so it's anti-consumer". Am I wrong?

Why the fuck shouldn't people rely on that when it has been the standard

Because it's still a privilege that can be yanked out from under people for any, or for no reason at all, regardless of how time-honored of a tradition. It's your own fault if you depend on the kindness of others and find yourself in a bad spot when they stop supporting you.

Houseman:

That's EA, though. This topic is about Bethesda. Different issues.

It is entirely the same issue. Its about the games publishers choosing to control the narrative. EA does it by picking and choosing who gets to review their games. Bethesda is doing it by not giving enough time for reviewers to have reviews ready at launch. The games companies indeed have the right to try and control the narrative. But they aren't doing it to be nice to the consumer. And they aren't doing it to "screw over" those pesky games journalists. They are doing it to make bigger profits.

If you are fine for games publishers to manipulate the review landscape so that bad games get launched with no bad reviews: then congratulations, you are officially anti-consumer. I certainly hope that isn't the case.

Houseman:

Revnak:

Waiting an additional week for no goddamn reason is kinda more than a slight inconvenience.

It's not necessarily an "additional week". Review copies are sent out one day before release. The time you wait depends on how fast your particular review takes.

But whether or not this is an inconvenience is irrelevant. The question is, is it "anti-consumer?"
Is it anti-consumer to delay the shipment of a privilege?

Yeah, because Bethesda, well known for releasing buggy and massive games, clearly only produces games that can be completed thoroughly enough by enough people to tell if it's got issues in a very short period of time. The effect is obviously worse for the consumer. Reviews will be rushed more, and be less thorough with games that need to be played quite thoroughly to know whether something is just going to destroy your game. Reviews will not, absolutely will not, be completed by the release date. There just is not enough hours in the day.

You're defending them

No I'm not. I'm attacking your claim that I'm not standing up for "pro-consumer" positions. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I agree with them.

Ok, then you think what they're doing is harmful to consumers. If not, I think you are being anti-consumer in not labeling this obviously anti-consumer policy as such. I honestly don't care if you define it as defending them or not.

What they are doing is definitively worse for the consumer

Not giving away free stuff is also definitively worse for the consumer, but it doesn't mean that not doing so is anti-consumer. Your argument seems to be "it's worse, so it's anti-consumer". Am I wrong?

Giving away free stuff isn't the standard for this and numerous other industries, and it isn't something that has been Bethesda's policy in the past. It is anti-consumer and not just worse because it is a change from the standard which was also their own goddamn policy made for no reason other than their own desire to control the media narrative surrounding their releases.

Why the fuck shouldn't people rely on that when it has been the standard

Because it's still a privilege that can be yanked out from under people for any, or for no reason at all, regardless of how time-honored of a tradition. It's your own fault if you depend on the kindness of others and find yourself in a bad spot when they stop supporting you.

How bootstrapy of you. Fine, then it's your fault for trusting advertisements to not be lies. After all, the truth is a privilege. It's your fault for assuming that journalists would always be decent to you. After all, kindness is a privilege. Your fault for your assumptions about ME3, about Aliens Colonial Marines, about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkessian, No Man's Sky, or whatever bullshit you feel like whining about. The only responsibility that anyone has is to presume that no one will behave with any responsibility. Thus is the code of the Houseman.

Houseman, I do not have high expectations of anyone, but I do think that there are still ways companies ought to behave. Having their expensive consumer electronic be reviewed in the same manner as everyone else so that their audience can be well informed falls into that. But whatever, go ahead and side with transparently negative decisions made by companies which only serve to hurt consumers for the sake of their own profits just because you are mad that some journalists said mean things about you. And before you say you aren't siding with them, remember how little I care about your empty and pointless rhetoric.

starbear:

Bethesda is doing it by not giving enough time for reviewers to have reviews ready at launch.

And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?

Houseman:

starbear:

Bethesda is doing it by not giving enough time for reviewers to have reviews ready at launch.

And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?

Perhaps if you re-read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the sentences you chose to not quote here, you might find the answer to this particular question.

Revnak:

Houseman:

Is it anti-consumer to delay the shipment of a privilege?

Yeah, because Bethesda, well known for releasing buggy and massive games, clearly only produces games that can be completed thoroughly enough by enough people to tell if it's got issues in a very short period of time. The effect is obviously worse for the consumer. Reviews will be rushed more, and be less thorough with games that need to be played quite thoroughly to know whether something is just going to destroy your game. Reviews will not, absolutely will not, be completed by the release date. There just is not enough hours in the day.

You didn't answer the question.

Giving away free stuff isn't the standard

You're right, it's a hypothetical, and you not giving an answer to the hypothetical prevents us from having a discussion about it.

So, for the last time:

Your argument seems to be "it's worse, so it's anti-consumer". Am I wrong?

How bootstrapy of you. Fine, then it's your fault for trusting advertisements to not be lies.

If I were to ever do such a thing, yes, it would be my fault.

starbear:

Houseman:

starbear:

Bethesda is doing it by not giving enough time for reviewers to have reviews ready at launch.

And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?

Perhaps if you re-read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the sentences you chose to not quote here, you might find the answer to this particular question.

There's also the fact that they are still giving out very early copies of their games...

..to youtubers. For paid advertisements.

starbear:

Houseman:

starbear:

Bethesda is doing it by not giving enough time for reviewers to have reviews ready at launch.

And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?

Perhaps if you re-read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the sentences you chose to not quote here, you might find the answer to this particular question.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I guess we'll never know, since you refuse to explain your position when asked.

Houseman:

Revnak:

Houseman:

Is it anti-consumer to delay the shipment of a privilege?

Yeah, because Bethesda, well known for releasing buggy and massive games, clearly only produces games that can be completed thoroughly enough by enough people to tell if it's got issues in a very short period of time. The effect is obviously worse for the consumer. Reviews will be rushed more, and be less thorough with games that need to be played quite thoroughly to know whether something is just going to destroy your game. Reviews will not, absolutely will not, be completed by the release date. There just is not enough hours in the day.

You didn't answer the question.

I'm sorry I actually put it in the context of what Bethesda is doing. If that "privilege" is a review copy and that "delay" makes it impossible for the reviewers to do their goddamn jobs and forewarn us about some horrible game, then yeah, it is anti-consumer.

Giving away free stuff isn't the standard

You're right, it's a hypothetical, and you not giving an answer to the hypothetical prevents us from having a discussion about it.

I'm sorry I'd rather deal with the actual scenario than your shitty hypothetical. I also pointed out where your hypothetical does not actually compare.

So, for the last time:

Your argument seems to be "it's worse, so it's anti-consumer". Am I wrong?

It is
1. Worse
2. A violation of the standard
3. A violation of what Bethesda has done in the past
4. Only being done to ensure that no bad news about the game will be available at launch in order to cover their own asses

But yeah, clearly I only said one of these four things.

How bootstrapy of you. Fine, then it's your fault for trusting advertisements to not be lies.

If I were to ever do such a thing, yes, it would be my fault.

So Mass Effect 3 was not anti-consumer? Same with Aliens Colonial Marines and No Man's Sky?

Houseman:

starbear:

Houseman:

And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?

Perhaps if you re-read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the sentences you chose to not quote here, you might find the answer to this particular question.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I guess we'll never know, since you refuse to explain your position when asked.

I didn't refuse to explain my position. I have already explained it. You simply needed to read my post.

But as that appears to be too difficult for you, I'll quote the relevant bit. And if you are unable to understand what I wrote then I would be perfectly willing to explain further. The relevant part is bolded.

starbear:
If you are fine for games publishers to manipulate the review landscape so that bad games get launched with no bad reviews: then congratulations, you are officially anti-consumer.

Revnak:

starbear:

Houseman:

And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?

Perhaps if you re-read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the sentences you chose to not quote here, you might find the answer to this particular question.

There's also the fact that they are still giving out very early copies of their games...

..to youtubers. For paid advertisements.

Holy crap. Are you serial? Was that cited somewhere in this thread?

Revnak:

I'm sorry I actually put it in the context of what Bethesda is doing. If that "privilege" is a review copy and that "delay" makes it impossible for the reviewers to do their goddamn jobs and forewarn us about some horrible game, then yeah, it is anti-consumer.

So you're saying that removing a privilege, one that Bethesda is under no obligation to give, is anti-consumer. There is not a question mark at the end of that sentence, because that is what you're saying. I think that this is a ridiculous notion because this is a privilege, not a right. It is not anti-consumer to stop giving out privileges that, by definition, you have no obligation to give. If the consumer is "hurt", it is because they relied too heavily on something that they shouldn't have.

And that's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

starbear:

Revnak:

starbear:

Perhaps if you re-read what I wrote again, paying particular attention to the sentences you chose to not quote here, you might find the answer to this particular question.

There's also the fact that they are still giving out very early copies of their games...

..to youtubers. For paid advertisements.

Holy crap. Are you serial? Was that cited somewhere in this thread?

They've already been doing so with Skyrim. Not sure if they're paid, though I think that's a fair assumption.

https://thegamersquare.com/xz-articles/bethesda-shuts-down-early-game-reviews.816/

Houseman:

Revnak:

I'm sorry I actually put it in the context of what Bethesda is doing. If that "privilege" is a review copy and that "delay" makes it impossible for the reviewers to do their goddamn jobs and forewarn us about some horrible game, then yeah, it is anti-consumer.

So you're saying that removing a privilege, one that Bethesda is under no obligation to give, is anti-consumer. There is not a question mark at the end of that sentence, because that is what you're saying. I think that this is a ridiculous notion because this is a privilege, not a right. It is not anti-consumer to stop giving out privileges that, by definition, you have no obligation to give.

And that's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

Houseman, as previously stated, I do not give the slightest fuck about your empty and meaningless rhetoric. You can frame anything as a privilege if you want, it would in fact be very easy to do so. Air, trees, a house, a man, all privileges. It's turtles all the way down really. So if that is all there is to your argument, some trivial maneuver of semantics, then I am glad that is all you have to say.

starbear:

But as that appears to be too difficult for you, I'll quote the relevant bit.

Great!

starbear:
If you are fine for games publishers to manipulate the review landscape so that bad games get launched with no bad reviews: then congratulations, you are officially anti-consumer.

And my question is still the same: "And how does this influence the narrative in their favor?"

As I see it, by making sure that NOBODY speaks about the game, they're stopping ANY narrative from being created. There is no narrative to be influenced. You can't influence something that doesn't exist.

Note that I'm not talking about the "review landscape", but the "narrative".

Houseman:

As I see it, by making sure that NOBODY speaks about the game, they're stopping ANY narrative from being created. There is no narrative to be influenced. You can't influence something that doesn't exist.

I mean, its not like they spend millions of dollars on advertisements. That's clearly not happening, and if it was, it certainly wouldn't be a narrative, more like a, uh, message about how the game will be. Obvious difference.

And I thought you were done?

Revnak:

And I thought you were done?

Only with you. Starbear has fresh new arguments to consider.

Houseman:

Revnak:

And I thought you were done?

Only with you. Starbear has fresh new arguments to consider.

Ah, so you do have more to say then. How upsetting.

Revnak:

Waiting an additional week for no goddamn reason is kinda more than a slight inconvenience.

Frankly, I do not see any reasonable scenario where this ever becomes more than a slight inconvenience. I just play something else while I wait for a review that convinces me to buy the game. A year later is still just a slight inconvenience.

Houseman:

As I see it, by making sure that NOBODY speaks about the game, they're stopping ANY narrative from being created. There is no narrative to be influenced. You can't influence something that doesn't exist.

You've never heard of a press release? You've never seen a game trailer? Advanced publicity? Of course somebody is speaking about the game.

You most certainly must live in a bubble. The entire job of a marketing department is to create a narrative. Its their freaking job. Everything that we know about a game pre-release is a carefully crafted package put together by a bunch of people designed to be absolutely positive and to make people want to buy the game. That narrative most certainly does exist. How on earth can you claim that it doesn't?

Alright, I feel like the questions asked by the OP have been thoroughly discussed and answered from various perspectives, but I would like to say a few things about the article. In my opinion, it doesn't even make a whole lot of sense to begin with, before completely breaking down in the second half.

Alright, so based on this, his basic model of how the games industry (including publishers and media) should work:

Publishers have no obligations towards the consumer. The responsibility is instead put on the shoulders of the media. Companies are purely rational and profit-maximizing, but this is constrained by the media, which informs the consumers about their purchasing decisions. This incentivizes the publishers not to engage in certain (consumer-damaging) practices, and the consumer wants to read this media to help him make these decisions. It's a pretty narrow view of how a creative industry works, but it is functional. Continuing on...

According to him, the problem is that the media has done a poor job of fulfilling their role, i.e. they have not done a good job of informing consumers. So, things I asked myself:

Why does the media have a moral burden while the developers of video games do not? Sites like Polygon are businesses in the exact same way that Bethesda are. And according to him, it is fine for businesses to seek to maximize profits to any extent they can. And yet he is outraged by the behavior of sites such as Polygon and VICE. To me that's a pretty clear contradiction.

He never present an argument for WHY journalists are doing a poor job of informing them through early copy reviews. He states that these reviews have been misleading, but he puts the blame for this purely on the ones doing the reviewing. It is their fault that they didn't pierce the veil of misinformation presented by the publishers. Meanwhile, the publishers shouldn't be expected to present the media with true information, since they are merely trying to make money, as is their right. However, he never explains why having no early review copies is better for anyone (except the companies) than having good early review copies.

Who does he want to help here? It is clearly not the rest of the media, which he describes as incompetent if not intentionally malicious. Yet how can it be the consumer, when he completely denies the ability of early review copies to help inform anyone, ignoring the possibility of publishers to deliver copies which reflect the actual game?

If he actually wanted to help consumers, he would demand truthful early review copies for everyone, including himself, leading to the best possible state of information of consumers. Instead, he would rather nobody receive them, since the video games media has apparently not deserved it because of their past behavior. No, he would rather these are no longer given to anyone! This clearly benefits only the publisher, and yet he claims it is everyone else who is not truly pro-consumer, implying that he himself is, despite his position clearly contradicting it.

After that the article declines into an angry rant about GamerGate which we can easily ignore since it has little to do with the issue.

starbear:

You've never heard of a press release? You've never seen a game trailer? Advanced publicity? Of course somebody is speaking about the game.

I do not consider advertisements to be part of "the narrative". I consider "the narrative" to come from 3rd parties such as reviewers, journalists, youtubers, not what people say about themselves.

Nielas:

Revnak:

Waiting an additional week for no goddamn reason is kinda more than a slight inconvenience.

Frankly, I do not see any reasonable scenario where this ever becomes more than a slight inconvenience. I just play something else while I wait for a review that convinces me to buy the game. A year later is still just a slight inconvenience.

I think you missed the "for no goddamn reason" part. I value my time too much to be ok with delays for absolutely no reason.

Houseman:

starbear:

You've never heard of a press release? You've never seen a game trailer? Advanced publicity? Of course somebody is speaking about the game.

I do not consider advertisements to be part of "the narrative". I consider "the narrative" to come from 3rd parties such as reviewers, journalists, youtubers, not what people say about themselves.

What is it exactly do you think I meant when I said "Its about the games publishers choosing to control the narrative?" The games companies don't want to have no narrative. They want a positive one, not a negative one, and they have always been creating a narrative since the first game publisher started publishing games.

Without a "narrative" from 3rd parties such as reviewers, journalists, youtubers, then the only thing consumers have to assess a game pre-launch is the narrative created by the games company. And remember I said "marketing" not "advertisements." There is a fundamental difference.

starbear:

What is it exactly do you think I meant when I said "Its about the games publishers choosing to control the narrative?"

By "narrative", I thought you meant "what 3rd parties say", like how I perceive the word "narrative".

Also, I don't see a difference between "marketing" and "advertisements".

Houseman:

starbear:

What is it exactly do you think I meant when I said "Its about the games publishers choosing to control the narrative?"

By "narrative", I thought you meant "what 3rd parties say", like how I perceive the word "narrative".

In the absence of 3rd parties, what do consumers have to rely on in order to make a decision to buy at launch?

Also, I don't see a difference between "marketing" and "advertisements".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked