Tom Clancy's The Division

johnny_ultimate

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

One of the most dangerous things in gaming at the moment is the acceptance of the so called norm.

Should we not be able to read/view a game review even a week before release??

Honestly, there's no obligation whatsoever for publishers to even provide reviewers with early copies of a game - they can do whatever the hell they want. They obviously place some value in doing so, so they will continue to do so, but they could stop doing it tomorrow and be perfectly within their rights, and face only the inevitable torrent of hyperbolic online outrage.

And yes games may not be finished until incredibly close to review time. I know, for example, that several key story elements of The Witness were not in place for reviewers - the game was still being finished up during the final week. I can only imagine what that's like for AAA releases (hence the prevalence of substantial day one patches).

Playing a game properly and forming a reasonable critique of it takes time. I'd rather a reviewer take a month after release to give a game proper consideration than just rush it out to meet an embargo. I know that puts me in a minority, but I'd rather a review tell me something interesting and insightful about the game than tell me to buy it or not.

I agree people could wait a day or two for a game review however this is cheap tactic by publishers deliberately used to deceive gamers and ensure that their titles sell well before even one word of criticism is written or spoken about them.

And if gamers continue to be stupid enough to voluntarily buy games before one word of criticism is written or spoken about them, they deserve to be taken advantage of This goes two ways - being a smart consumer means not playing into practices you find objectionable. You are not a sheep (no offence intended to posters who may, in fact, be sheep)!

It's not like The Division has been all secretive anyway. They've given all players a significant chance to play the 'work in progress', which I'm sure many will find more valuable and decisive than any number of reviews.

FAILSAFE 00

tok9 wrote: »

Comparing it to movies is a completely unfair comparison. By the time a movie is reviewed it is complete. There is nothing else to do.

When a game is being reviewed it is still being worked on by the developers. The reviewer generally doesn't even have the final build until the consumer does.

Is it really that hard to wait on the reviews? Surely if you're waiting on reviews you aren't in a huge rush to go out and pick up the game?

Very fair comparison. The game is complete and has already shipped.

You make a lot presumptions. They don't have the full build. The game isn't finished, etc etc.

While games have changed that doesn't mean that a review should simply be left until after a game releases. Many reviewers have already begun to break reviews up into multiple formats. Some only doing first impressions initially and then full reviews later or releasing a campaign review first and then followed with a multiplayer review and so on.

Gamers/consumers should be able to read or watch a review of a game before its released. Full stop. This would be the best thing for everyone in the games industry from players to publishers. It keeps everything honest and transparent.

Ubisoft have no excuse. Its a co-op game with a campaign and a PvP multiplayer. The campaign has very limited interaction with other gamers which only takes place in safe zones. The rest is solo or co-op. Reviews of the Dark Zone could be done post launch since reviewers would need many gamers to be on to experience it properly. Many gamers have already tried the PvP mode and know what its all about anyway.

FAILSAFE 00

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

...
It's not like The Division has been all secretive anyway. They've given all players a significant chance to play the 'work in progress', which I'm sure many will find more valuable and decisive than any number of reviews.

This reminds me of Destiny. Played the beta and really liked it. Jumped on the hype train and then to my horror I discover a bare 6hr disjointed campaign.

I am hoping The Division doesn't pull the same crap.

tok9

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Very fair comparison. The game is complete and has already shipped.

You make a lot presumptions. They don't have the full build. The game isn't finished, etc etc.

I'm not making any presumption, every game has a day 1 patch.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

While games have changed that doesn't mean that a review should simply be left until after a game releases.

When is the review embargo for The Division?

The review embargo for the majority of games is usually the day before it comes out so if that's the case I'm not sure what you're even complaining about.

ZiabR

tok9 wrote: »

The review embargo for the majority of games is usually the day before it comes out so if that's the case I'm not sure what you're even complaining about.

I think Failsafe is simply pointing out that gamers as a whole have been burned so much with recent games and especially games published by Ubisoft that it would benefit the industry on a whole if reviews were readily available before launch day.

It would allow people to see what they are expected to spend 30-70 euro on and also it would mean that publishers could not get away with launching unfinished games because it would affect sales.

tok9

But reviews do go out before the game launches so I'm not really seeing the issue unless someone has confirmation that the embargo is after the game goes on sale?

Maximus Alexander

logik wrote: »

I think Failsafe is simply pointing out that gamers as a whole have been burned so much with recent games and especially games published by Ubisoft

I reckon that's more to do with people buying games 3 to 6 months before they're released than the timing of reviews. If you simply have to have things the day they come out and can't wait even a few days to see what peoples' impressions are, of course you're going to get burned. It makes it way too easy for companies like Ubisoft to no give a crap what they're churning out when people will fling money at them anyway.

Maybe it's an age thing and I'm on the older end of the gamer spectrum these days, but I find the way gamers behave as consumers truly perplexing.

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I reckon that's more to do with people buying games 3 to 6 months before they're released than the timing of reviews. If you simply have to have things the day they come out and can't wait even a few days to see what peoples' impressions are, of course you're going to get burned. It makes it way too easy for companies like Ubisoft to no give a crap what they're churning out when people will fling money at them anyway.

Maybe it's an age thing and I'm on the older end of the gamer spectrum these days, but I find the way gamers behave as consumers truly perplexing.

Correct and right, however it doesn't make it right. Ubisoft knows that the majority will get caught up in the hype and splooge the money on it regardless.

johnny_ultimate

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Correct and right, however it doesn't make it right.

:pac:

Of course it would be ideal if reviews were available far in advance of launch, but even ignoring that there are often genuine practical reasons for a late embargo (namely that the game isn't finished, or online games not yet having populated servers, or simply allowing reviewers enough time with the game to form a definitive opinion) and not just marketing ones, there's no obligation for any company to do so other than the goodness of their hearts, and nor will there ever be.

And the only people who really suffer from late embargoes are the people who insist on buying games ahead of release for some reason. I do not for a second blame or criticise companies for taking advantage of that silliness - if a company can make easy money out of nothing other than the voluntary spending habits of a large number of consumers, then they'll continue to do so. For everyone else, the usual wisdom prevails: just wait and see.

Maximus Alexander

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Correct and right, however it doesn't make it right. Ubisoft knows that the majority will get caught up in the hype and splooge the money on it regardless.

Yeah for sure, that's not intended as a defense of Ubi, I have a strong dislike for them. But while it's not always the case and some people take pride in their work, a lot of the time, businesses are going to act like businesses and Ubi are one of the latter. Gamers totally play into their hands.

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah for sure, that's not intended as a defense of Ubi, I have a strong dislike for them. But while it's not always the case and some people take pride in their work, a lot of the time, businesses are going to act like businesses and Ubi are one of the latter. Gamers totally play into their hands.

For me personally, A Tuesday release is ideal as it means that I wait until Friday at the earliest and at that stage the game will be out for a few days.

The initial feedback here and from game journalists will be a decision maker.

What's also sneaky / clever is how Ubisoft market this game. Some clever open ended advertisements during the Utd game on Thursday for example.
Bungie did the same thing for Destiny.
If you ask the general "Joe Soap" what genre The Division actually falls under they haven't a clue but looks good is the answer you will get.

Maximus Alexander

I think that's one of the things that makes me dislike Ubi - they make games with such good premises, then advertise them really well and they look brilliant, but then the reality never lives up to it. :pac: I mean you can't blame them for making their product look great in an advertisement, that's sort of the point, I just wish they would also deliver!

I can't help but think back to GTAV as a comparison. The adverts looked fantastic, and then the game delivered exactly what was in the adverts.

That brings me rambling way off topic into companies that advertise games on TV without ever showing any footage of the actual game. God I hate that. "Not in game footage" - then why the f*ck are you showing it to me? :pac:

Kiith

I'm a sucker for a good trailer, in game footage or not.

As for the game itself, i'd expect a 6-8 hour campaign, that is padded out with a lot of sidemissions. The main game will be the gearing up afterwards though, like Destiny.

Captain Chaos

Kiith wrote: »

I'm a sucker for a good trailer, in game footage or not.

As for the game itself, i'd expect a 6-8 hour campaign, that is padded out with a lot of sidemissions. The main game will be the gearing up afterwards though, like Destiny.

They have already announced the 3 DLC packs as part of the season pass. Not impressed with it from what I have read.

I liked the beta but this game has Destiny syndrome all over it from what I can see so far.

Low level cap, around 50-58 weapons. BF4 has way more and this supposed to be a loot game. The latest interview from the developers sound like they are banking on the Dark Zone making this game. That's the part I'm least interested in and looks like a troll grief paradise.

It better have more content as shipped on day one than indicated so far. I'm going to hold out on this one, but I'm not going to write it off just yet.

Wonda-Boy

I would be in the same boat as you chaos, I was hoping for decent pve with friends and not interested so much in the DZ as it will be an asshole festival 24/7 imho. I'd say it will be a very good game but you will literally have to pay (DLCs) for the pleasure.

Stone Deaf 4evr

*jams fingers in ears*

itllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegooditllbegood.

Captain Chaos

As i suspected Ubi has confirmed that the servers will not go live until launch day in each country so there will be no reviews before release. Reviewers are not getting advance access as Ubi say it will not reflect how the game plays as the world will not be populated as normal.

Xbox preloading starts today, tomorrow for PC and 6th for PS4. It is bad that PS4 players only have 48hrs to download the game as PSN caps speeds during high demand files.

LOL as expected

FAILSAFE 00

Captain Chaos wrote: »

As i suspected Ubi has confirmed that the servers will not go live until launch day in each country so there will be no reviews before release. Reviewers are not getting advance access as Ubi say it will not reflect how the game plays as the world will not be populated as normal.

Xbox preloading starts today, tomorrow for PC and 6th for PS4. It is bad that PS4 players only have 48hrs to download the game as PSN caps speeds during high demand files.

What a load of horse ****e.

When I put that Ubisoft news into Google Bullsh** translator™ it reads like this

We want to make sure we sell a **** load of copies before you find out the game seriously lacks content and there is even one word of criticism written about our game.

This is not an MMO that needs a massive populated server to review a vast portion of the game. You only ever see other players in very small areas of city like the basecamp where all you can do is match make with them. There is no trading system. After that there is the PvP section which everyone already knows how it plays.

TitianGerm

Glad I went with a disk copy now. A bit shady from Ubi here with the review copies.

Dare I say it but a whiff of Watchdogs about it

Captain Chaos

It even needs to be able to connect to the servers for just solo play. So if your broadband goes down the game is useless and unplayable.

FAILSAFE 00

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/03/02/there-is-no-the-division-review-embargo-because-there-are-no-review-copies/

forbes wrote:

Ubisoft’s idea that certain aspects of the game would be hard to review without public, live servers does hold a certain amount of water, I suppose, but it is a bit strange. Many other multiplayer-focused games have designated multiplayer sessions that press can play ahead of launch, or enough servers are turned on to make matchmaking at least somewhat possible for online modes

Turtyturd

emmetkenny wrote: »

Glad I went with a disk copy now. A bit shady from Ubi here with the review copies.

Dare I say it but a whiff of Watchdogs about it

I was getting worried about all the Destiny comparisons, at least this is a step up. :pac:

GottaGetGatt

Meh, from what I played in the Alpha and two beta's, I've my mind made up and getting it day one. Destinys campaign was pure sh!te but that didn't stop me playing the game for nearly a year and a half.

If you want a review then just watch some of the 100 upon thousands of gameplay videos on YouTube instead of waiting for someone's paid opinion.

Captain Chaos

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

If you want a review then just watch some of the 100 upon thousands of gameplay videos on YouTube instead of waiting for someone's paid opinion.

We want to actually how much content we are getting for our €50. The beta just showed graphics and gameplay mechanics but not how much of it there actually is.

Just like Destiny, the beta was most of the game imo. It was not worth €50 for the massive lack of content at launch and then you had to pay to make is a decent size game. I bought Destiny thinking there was more, actually took Bungie at their word and I got badly burned.

ZiabR

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

We want to make sure we sell a **** load of copies before you find out the game seriously lacks content and there is even one word of criticism written about our game.

That is exactly what Ubi are doing. They as a company have been ripped to shreds over the past 12-16 months over the state they launch games in. Hell as much as I love Rainbow Six, it took 3 months to get the game into a state that it really should have been launched in.

That said, I will admit that The Division does run and play very well. For a beta the game was in good shape, yes there were some bugs but nothing major.

Still have my pitch fork and torch at the ready though...

dricko_lim

Said Id take the chance and go digital. Had a quick 'round trip' to Argentina and got the Gold addition for c. €40....€60 saving on the xbox! Normal edition is c. €30

Shiminay

Stop. Pre-ordering. Games.

Seriously, how often to you have to be told this?

No pre-orders means a proper review period. In a lot of ways, the move away from print media to online for games reviews has allowed games publishers to get away with all sorts of stuff. With printing deadlines being the way they were, review copies had to be in the journalists' hands 2-3 months before launch.

awec

Shiminay wrote: »

Stop. Pre-ordering. Games.

Seriously, how often to you have to be told this?

No pre-orders means a proper review period. In a lot of ways, the move away from print media to online for games reviews has allowed games publishers to get away with all sorts of stuff. With printing deadlines being the way they were, review copies had to be in the journalists' hands 2-3 months before launch.

How do journalists accurately review games like The Division months in advance, even if they are given copies and access to servers?

Shiminay

Ubisoft turns on a server or ten and gives them access. That's how these things have always worked.