Fallout: New Vegas miscellaneous round-up

that may be but when I'm spending 200 dollars on a game I want a review so I can know what I'm getting into.
 
A review embargo doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Arkham Asylum and Starcraft 2 had embargos. I would like to read reviews before buying NV though, mainly to see how buggy it is.
 
Whats this shit about that review-embargo? I was aware there were such ridiculous things for moviereviews for some obscure reason but is this used in Games as well? Why do they make their stupid pr-stunts then? Stuff on blogs, stuff on twitter, Preview-movies all over the net and presence at E3 and whatnot but then ordering people when and when not to release their review?

I suppose if a journo actually signs some NDA or something like this so he gets shown some exclusive footage, there could be some legal argy-bargy about who, when and how the stuff should be released. But what legal leverage is there to stop, for example, a gamingsite to review the known stuff before that embargo is lifted?

Or is this just targeted at the major gaming magazines who wont get any exclusive stuff anymore if they don’t behave? Or the copies they sent off to magazines? And if so, why do they allow that? If they don’t get material to review without strings attached, why write about the game at all? Let them try to hype themselves. Or write about the things that are publicly available only, see if they like that.

If only Nixon had known he could have shut up Bernstein and the like with an embargo about “things that might inconvenience the gov”… then again, Bernstein obviously isn’t a sissy. I know true investigative journalism isn’t the same as game-reviews but still, if you only publish what and when the producer wants, why hire staff at all, just ask them to send you their own “review”.

I am a bit confused how they sell preorders too if this is a known practice. Hyping like hell, then sell preorders and stop people from reviewing the product? Am I (and John B?) the only one who finds that... suspicious? And if it does not matter, because everything is on the net and opinions are made long before release… why make a review after the dust has settled at all? Its not really helpful to read two months after release that the game you bought is shit, is it?
 
Beth put Fallout 3 under an embargo for many sites. I was at Planet Fallout at the time and we were under the embargo until release day(I think)
 
I don't have faith in any product to buy it before it's released. The last thing I want to listen to is the marketing jargon and believe what marketing wants me to believe about their product. Look at the most recent iPhone, who's fault was that? The consumer or the company? If Steve Jobbs took a shit in thousands of iPhone boxes and sold it as the next best Apple thing, how many people are going to buy it before they realize it's just expensive fertilizer?

For me, I don't see the point of releasing reviews after the release date. If anything, it'll only keep me from contributing to the first day/week sales. Though, I get it if the strategy is to get consumers that want the game (based on non-review insights) to make a $50-$60 gamble just to play it first.

I buy games like I'm tipping at a restaurant. If it's really good, I'll support the company and pay well. But I'll be damned if I tip the waiter before he serves me.
 
I have no idea why people are wigging out over this embargo business, this is not a rare occurrence or anything.

Anyways, I think most of us know what to expect at this point. Personally I have let myself become a bit hyped for this one and have some decent expectations. Let's just see however it ends up being a reskinned Fallout 3. Even the naysayers of us here who drove F3 into the ground no doubt spent many many many hours with it. I have no doubt we will do the same for Vegas.
 
Incognito said:
Beth put Fallout 3 under an embargo for many sites. I was at Planet Fallout at the time and we were under the embargo until release day(I think)
Click to expand...

But how does it work? Do they write you a letter saying you are not allowed to publish a review? What is a review? If i trawl the net, look at some FN:NV stuff and then write a bit about it and put it on a site that belongs to me, i dont see how they could stop that. I dont get it how this can be legal. Not even the government can shut a newspaper up in any halfway decent democracy, so how does beth (or others) do it? Am i misunderstanding something? :|
 
Arden said:
Incognito said:
Beth put Fallout 3 under an embargo for many sites. I was at Planet Fallout at the time and we were under the embargo until release day(I think)
Click to expand...

But how does it work? Do they write you a letter saying you are not allowed to publish a review? What is a review? If i trawl the net, look at some FN:NV stuff and then write a bit about it and put it on a site that belongs to me, i dont see how they could stop that. I dont get it how this can be legal. Not even the government can shut a newspaper up in any halfway decent democracy, so how does beth (or others) do it? Am i misunderstanding something? :|
Click to expand...

In order for a gaming publication/website to survive they need to be able to do interviews with developers, be invited to demos at E3, etc. If they break the review embargo, or if the publisher feels they have there is a risk that said publisher will no longer invite the publication/website to demos or agree to do interviews, which means the publication has less material and worse coverage of any future games that publisher does.

Basically, the gaming press have to stay on publishers good side, so they will obey the terms of the review embargo.
 
Arden: Reviewers are provided with review copies directly from Bethsoft, or else they could not play through the game until its release date and write a fair review, now could they?

And since its their copy their playing, I guess it's fair game to have a condition for it. Not everybody does that, but I guess there's a reason for it- to put less significance on the first few reviews? To give all reviews attention at once?

Also, given that, even by purchasing the game, you only acquire a license for one PC/console to play it on, there's probably nothing illegal about embargos.

On a side note, we're talking about full reviews here. Impressions previews etc. can be posted anytime.
 
Ah i see. So its not really a legal issue like a c&d but more like a mutual agreement. Cool, thanks hagren and serfa. Embargo just sounded so important.

I dont see the stuff about license and ownership. You can write about things you dont own (newspapers would be pretty empty otherwise).
 
As someone else said, we were given early copies, that came witha letter that asked to hold posting reviews until a certain date.
 
Incognito said:
As someone else said, we were given early copies, that came witha letter that asked to hold posting reviews until a certain date.
Click to expand...

Wait....so you already have the game?
 
K.C. Cool said:
I buy games like I'm tipping at a restaurant. If it's really good, I'll support the company and pay well. But I'll be damned if I tip the waiter before he serves me.
Click to expand...

This isn't some indirect way of saying, "I just pirate the game then pay them later if I decide they deserved it" is it? Cause that would be really lame reasoning, especially for someone going into graphic design and who could get screwed by such thinking for their whole career.

On the embargo issue....big freaking deal, they send these site advanced copies for both parties benefit And yes it is win/win. Perhaps even win/win/win. The gaming site gets a early copy to have a quality review up on release day, driving traffic through the site. The publisher gets a big feature article on release day on every participating game site out there. And gamers get 2 dozen reviews to read over the day the game comes out.

I see pre-orders having little to nothing to do with this. People who pre-order games do it before the reviews come out even if they were to realease reviews a few days or even weeks early. So are they really going to cancel that pre-order b/c MAX GAMING INFORMATION MAG give the game a 7.7/10? No.

Beside which reviews are largely garbage. After all the 9.5/10s that Oblivion and FO3 got without mentioning many obvious peoblems, what exactly do you think we will really leard from a New Vegas review?
 
What he is most likely saying is that he will wait read reviews and rent the game before he decides weather or not the company deserves a penny from him, which is a philosophy that I full-heartedly agree with. also considering your accusations on this man may I direct you to the saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
 
John B. said:
What he is most likely saying is that he will wait read reviews and rent the game before he decides weather or not the company deserves a penny from him, which is a philosophy that I full-heartedly agree with. also considering your accusations on this man may I direct you to the saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

Meh, 1st - I just suggested it souned like piracy, I didn't say certainly was. And 2nd - that's a terribly perverted christian quote that relativists grabbed to try to stop people from telling others not to do wrong (note: that quote is about not telling people they are damned to hell and about being humble when correcting - not about being either perfect or silent).

That said, I agree renting is a great approach for many games. With the modern Fallouts, I'd only buy it on PC for mods, but I guess renting for the 360 to test it out first could be a good move. I don't have that option though since my last system was purchased in 2001.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top