Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Trade shows and hype trains suck

Trade shows and hype Trains Suck. In the era of pre orders and pre release awards the hype trains are getting out of hand. The only people losing in video game marketing is the consumer.

No Mans sky, Watch Dogs, and Aliens Colonial Marines are just a couple examples. Say no to trade show marketing machines and pre orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T5ET0wC0Kc

Just don't buy until a while after release.
You miss out of pre-release shinies, but you're not really any worse off.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Just don't buy until a while after release.
You miss out of pre-release shinies, but you're not really any worse off.

This. Unless you have some tie to franchise and love it dearly, and cannot resist whatever is in their collector's edition, you really miss out on nothing. Wow, you got a special skin, or a differently coloured weapon for an extra $10? That's usually the extent to which preorder bonuses go.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Just don't buy until a while after release.
You miss out of pre-release shinies, but you're not really any worse off.

This. Unless you have some tie to franchise and love it dearly, and cannot resist whatever is in their collector's edition, you really miss out on nothing. Wow, you got a special skin, or a differently coloured weapon for an extra $10? That's usually the extent to which preorder bonuses go.

G.A

To an extent. I don't mind pre-ordering and supporting a company I like that makes good products (see the Dark Souls team, or XCOM) but there is something to be said for waiting on reviews for iffy games.

Pre-orders are just stupid and most of the time the bonus isn't really worth the trouble when you look at it. And yeah trade shows can suck as well.

I've played and got a pokemon game for each gen since the very beginning and even then I'd never preorder one of the new ones even if I know I'll likely just buy it later anyway.

 n0t_u wrote:
Pre-orders are just stupid and most of the time the bonus isn't really worth the trouble when you look at it. And yeah trade shows can suck as well.

I've played and got a pokemon game for each gen since the very beginning and even then I'd never preorder one of the new ones even if I know I'll likely just buy it later anyway.

Pre-order bonuses are stupid. What's wrong with pre-ordering a good game you want day one?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Pre-orders are just stupid and most of the time the bonus isn't really worth the trouble when you look at it. And yeah trade shows can suck as well.

I've played and got a pokemon game for each gen since the very beginning and even then I'd never preorder one of the new ones even if I know I'll likely just buy it later anyway.

Pre-order bonuses are stupid. What's wrong with pre-ordering a good game you want day one?

Yeah, there's a thing of "all pre-orders are bad" going around, which I only half agree with. Games like Dishonoured 2, Fallout 4, and TW: Warhammer, were games I was always going to get on release. Pre-ordering them didn't harm me in any way, shape or form. For games outside of series, or developers who haven't given out review codes etc. then sure, it makes sense to be sceptical, but for games that are part of franchises I enjoy, have had good reviews, or aren't as likely as some to be absolute arse? I'll pre-order, unless the price at release is really stupid and I can't find a discounted one anywhere. It's not really much different to buying it on day one under those circumstances.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Pre-orders are just stupid and most of the time the bonus isn't really worth the trouble when you look at it. And yeah trade shows can suck as well.

I've played and got a pokemon game for each gen since the very beginning and even then I'd never preorder one of the new ones even if I know I'll likely just buy it later anyway.

Pre-order bonuses are stupid. What's wrong with pre-ordering a good game you want day one?

Yeah, there's a thing of "all pre-orders are bad" going around, which I only half agree with. Games like Dishonoured 2, Fallout 4, and TW: Warhammer, were games I was always going to get on release. Pre-ordering them didn't harm me in any way, shape or form. For games outside of series, or developers who haven't given out review codes etc. then sure, it makes sense to be sceptical, but for games that are part of franchises I enjoy, have had good reviews, or aren't as likely as some to be absolute arse? I'll pre-order, unless the price at release is really stupid and I can't find a discounted one anywhere. It's not really much different to buying it on day one under those circumstances.

Exactly. Anytime a review embargo is placed on a game, it always makes me wary, but games like Fallout 4, Dark Souls, etc. always delivered on Day 1.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Pre-order bonuses are stupid. What's wrong with pre-ordering a good game you want day one?

Inherently there is no issue with simply pre-ordering a game, bonuses or not, but in that case, why would you not want to wait to get some critical feedback on what the game is like before you buy it? You lose nothing if the game turns out to be terrible (in the eyes of people you trust and share similar opinions with, of course) - if it's good, you only wait a week or so longer. Embargoes are now more and more common amongst AAA titles, and even smaller releases, so there's less room for finding out what you're gonna get, unless someone breaks those rules and gets blacklisted, of course.

And no, not all pre-orders are a bad idea, to an extent; I have no problem with people buying a collector's edition, for instance, for either an old franchise they love, or even a new one that has made them fall in love with the lore, such as Overwatch. It's when hype culture and basic pre-order bonuses combine and create a rampaging following of people who have to aggressively defend their purchases against people who are more cynical and sceptical with their money before they've even played the damn game *cough**cough*NO MANS SKY*cough*. Imho, hype culture is a big factor in why the gaming community is filled with absolute scumbags that I'm disgusted to call people who share a common interest with me, and recent examples of that prove my point very clearly.

And sometimes even collector's editions are of crappy quality; remember the Fallout 4 Pip Boy? I'm glad I didn't have the money to buy one at the time because of how tacky the thing was, and how it didn't support a lot of phones that people had. And on top of that, Fallout 4 turned out to be quite a flop when you peeled back the surface. Double "phew!" right?

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Pre-order bonuses are stupid. What's wrong with pre-ordering a good game you want day one?

Inherently there is no issue with simply pre-ordering a game, bonuses or not, but in that case, why would you not want to wait to get some critical feedback on what the game is like before you buy it? You lose nothing if the game turns out to be terrible (in the eyes of people you trust and share similar opinions with, of course) - if it's good, you only wait a week or so longer. Embargoes are now more and more common amongst AAA titles, and even smaller releases, so there's less room for finding out what you're gonna get, unless someone breaks those rules and gets blacklisted, of course.

And no, not all pre-orders are a bad idea, to an extent; I have no problem with people buying a collector's edition, for instance, for either an old franchise they love, or even a new one that has made them fall in love with the lore, such as Overwatch. It's when hype culture and basic pre-order bonuses combine and create a rampaging following of people who have to aggressively defend their purchases against people who are more cynical and sceptical with their money before they've even played the damn game *cough**cough*NO MANS SKY*cough*. Imho, hype culture is a big factor in why the gaming community is filled with absolute scumbags that I'm disgusted to call people who share a common interest with me, and recent examples of that prove my point very clearly.

And sometimes even collector's editions are of crappy quality; remember the Fallout 4 Pip Boy? I'm glad I didn't have the money to buy one at the time because of how tacky the thing was, and how it didn't support a lot of phones that people had. And on top of that, Fallout 4 turned out to be quite a flop when you peeled back the surface. Double "phew!" right?

G.A

Review embargos are LESS common, in fact, GameSpot (for example) almost always releases reviews the Friday before the Tuesday a game comes out. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find more concrete data, but this is from IGN's 2013 site, and most games were reviewed a week before their street date.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign-review-calendar/Game_Release_Dates_and_Reviews_(2013)

Dark Souls 3 was also reviewed a week before it's street date. It was also released in Japan about a month early, so Youtubers could play/review it too. Review embargos are becoming less frequent, and are almost always a bad sign for games, hence why good companies won't do them.

Also, what's so bad about hype culture? It's the whole reason video games get as much attention as they do. There's nothing inherantly wrong about being excited for a game, but there's a problem when people expect something that was never promised *cough**cough*NO MANS SKY*cough*

 jreilly89 wrote:


Review embargos are LESS common, in fact, GameSpot (for example) almost always releases reviews the Friday before the Tuesday a game comes out. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find more concrete data, but this is from IGN's 2013 site, and most games were reviewed a week before their street date.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign-review-calendar/Game_Release_Dates_and_Reviews_(2013)

Dark Souls 3 was also reviewed a week before it's street date. It was also released in Japan about a month early, so Youtubers could play/review it too. Review embargos are becoming less frequent, and are almost always a bad sign for games, hence why good companies won't do them.

I got a 404 error from the link you sent Either way, Embargoes are most certainly more common amongst independents and YouTube reviewers, who are the only people I care about to get precise information. Those "game journalists" behind IGN and GameSpot are well known for delivering inaccurate and often incredibly subjective information. You don't think GameSpot's "opinion" on a game might change when they are being offered a tonne of pre order exclusives from the game publishers just a little bit? You don't think there may be a tiny bit of bias in a review when IGN gets consistent "exclusive access" and "first to report" on many AAA titles?

Apologies for all the quotations, but seriously, IGN and GameSpot are easily the biggest offenders when it comes to unreliable and untrustworthy game reviews and information, with many other big sites like PC Gamer in tow. And while they all get earlier review embargoes for their games, big YouTuber reviewers with massive respect and popularity such as TotalBiscuit and Angry Joe can only talk about the games after release day 9 times out of 10. I don't know if that would sound alarm bells in your ears that publishers are basically manipulating "game journalists" to write better reviews and scores for their games while silencing passionate gamers who refuse to be part of sponsored deals around games that haven't been released yet until after the main release when pre-orders can't be reversed, but it certainly does for me.

Also, what's so bad about hype culture? It's the whole reason video games get as much attention as they do. There's nothing inherantly wrong about being excited for a game, but there's a problem when people expect something that was never promised *cough**cough*NO MANS SKY*cough*

Again, nothing inherently wrong with looking forward to games, but it never seems to be that simple when it comes to gaming - marketing campaigns by publishers find it so easy to whip up the utter donkey caves that are part of this community into an absolute frenzy, where they cannot see simple reasoning about why the game they paid for before it has even released could be a bad deal. Publishers are essentially getting consumers to do the marketing for them by creating these insane cult followings, as they scream a yet unplayable game's praise from the highest rooftops while literally threatening to rape and murder people who hold a more cynical approach to their buys. Sounds pretty awful to me.

If we lived in a better world, I'd agree with you. If we lived in a better world, most gamers would be behind bars where they belong for their actions on the internet too, and I wouldn't be sad about it. It sucks that my friends and family have to see the fruitcakes and loonies who give gamers such a bad rep first before they see the people who actually care about games and the culture surrounding them, and hype culture is certainly an important factor in this label that we all have slapped onto us, whether we like it or not. Hell, my mum still thinks games make people violent, and how can I blame her when she sees gak like No Man's Sky fanatics sending death threats to publishers for pushing back a release date.

 General Annoyance wrote:

I got a 404 error from the link you sent Either way, Embargoes are most certainly more common amongst independents and YouTube reviewers, who are the only people I care about to get precise information. Those "game journalists" behind IGN and GameSpot are well known for delivering inaccurate and often incredibly subjective information. You don't think GameSpot's "opinion" on a game might change when they are being offered a tonne of pre order exclusives from the game publishers just a little bit? You don't think there may be a tiny bit of bias in a review when IGN gets consistent "exclusive access" and "first to report" on many AAA titles?

Apologies for all the quotations, but seriously, IGN and GameSpot are easily the biggest offenders when it comes to unreliable and untrustworthy game reviews and information, with many other big sites like PC Gamer in tow. And while they all get earlier review embargoes for their games, big YouTuber reviewers with massive respect and popularity such as TotalBiscuit and Angry Joe can only talk about the games after release day 9 times out of 10. I don't know if that would sound alarm bells in your ears that publishers are basically manipulating "game journalists" to write better reviews and scores for their games while silencing passionate gamers who refuse to be part of sponsored deals around games that haven't been released yet until after the main release when pre-orders can't be reversed, but it certainly does for me.

Sure, I'd agreed with IGN and Gamespot being biased. I guess it's never been a big deal breaker for me either ways, as I'm not really looking for a completely "unbiased" review, but rather a "Hey is this fun? Any broken features?" Which outside a couple games, they're usually fair on. As for embargos on independents, it's more likely publishers don't want to send free review copies to small independents and really only hit the name brand reviewers. Plus, given some of the Youtuber reviewers, I can't say I blame them. Some of them are rather awful, and I think "passionate" is a bit of an understatement.

Also, what's so bad about hype culture? It's the whole reason video games get as much attention as they do. There's nothing inherantly wrong about being excited for a game, but there's a problem when people expect something that was never promised *cough**cough*NO MANS SKY*cough*

Again, nothing inherently wrong with looking forward to games, but it never seems to be that simple when it comes to gaming - marketing campaigns by publishers find it so easy to whip up the utter donkey caves that are part of this community into an absolute frenzy, where they cannot see simple reasoning about why the game they paid for before it has even released could be a bad deal. Publishers are essentially getting consumers to do the marketing for them by creating these insane cult followings, as they scream a yet unplayable game's praise from the highest rooftops while literally threatening to rape and murder people who hold a more cynical approach to their buys. Sounds pretty awful to me.

If we lived in a better world, I'd agree with you. If we lived in a better world, most gamers would be behind bars where they belong for their actions on the internet too, and I wouldn't be sad about it. It sucks that my friends and family have to see the fruitcakes and loonies who give gamers such a bad rep first before they see the people who actually care about games and the culture surrounding them, and hype culture is certainly an important factor in this label that we all have slapped onto us, whether we like it or not. Hell, my mum still thinks games make people violent, and how can I blame her when she sees gak like No Man's Sky fanatics sending death threats to publishers for pushing back a release date.

Eh, I'd hardly say that's all gamers fault, but rather the fault of the media. I mean, that kind of insane gak exists with movies, music, etc. Just look at the recent gakstorm that was the Ghostbuster's remake. I think it's just easier to stick it to gamers because as much as it's become an accepted hobby, a lot of older or upper class people still view it as a "Kid's hobby" or a "dork's hobby". That and I think a lot of the crap on the internet is due to anonymity.