As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Ubisoft to reviewer: No A? No review copy for you of Assassins Creed 2

CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
edited November 2009 in Games and Technology
Ubisoft at it again

We hear about these situations far too much, where a publisher is accused of attempting to broker a guaranteed favorable review from a press outlet. The latest to face such allegations is Ubisoft, having been named and shamed by German magazine Computer Bild Spiele for demanding a high score for Assassin's Creed 2. SCANDAL!

"Our reviews are tough, but fair. We will not give up our independent scores for the sake of a timely review," explains the magazine in its latest issue. "This holds true for Assassin’s Creed 2. The publisher asked us to guarantee the score 'sehr gut,' otherwise we would not receive a review copy, thus we will publish our review in next month’s issue. We’d be more than glad to give the game a ’sehr gut’, but only if it deserves it."

Sehr Gut is essentially Computer Bild Spiele's version of an A-grade, meaning that Ubisoft was only willing to trade a game copy for an incredibly positive review. Of course, asking an outlet to guarantee something like that before they've played the game is asking them to trade in every ounce of integrity they've worked to build, and if these allegations are true, it's a shame that Ubisoft felt the need to barter against someone's self respect like that.

In any case, Computer Bild Spiele has probably ensured that it won't be getting any more games from Ubisoft. Good for them, and let shame rain down on any writer that actually agreed to such shenanigans.

Say isn't this familar....

Might just be me though.

Cade on
«13

Posts

  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Meh.

    It supposedly happens a lot, but more often than not, the game in question turns out to be good.

    This supposedly happened with Batman, remember?

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Walrus PeteWalrus Pete Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Way to completely ignore the point.

    Walrus Pete on
  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? the foot of mt fujiRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Batman had a demo, though, which proved how good it would be

    Olivaw on
    signature-deffo.jpg
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Way to completely ignore the point.

    I'm not ignoring the point, it's just a horse that's been absolutely beaten to death at this point.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The answer to this is to put an F on metacritic right away since they didnt receive the review work in time. Then unless they get a review copy they can take their sweet time going out and buying a copy to review. I think thats the public answer to this situation. PR, drum up traffic, sell more copies (of the mag), anger the nerds. its really win win.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The answer to this is to put an F on metacritic right away since they didnt receive the review work in time. Then unless they get a review copy they can take their sweet time going out and buying a copy to review. I think thats the public answer to this situation.

    This is somehow even less professional than what Ubisoft is doing.

    This isn't fucking school, they're not being assigned letter grades to determine whether or not they pass.

    They'd be putting a low score on a game they didn't even review. So much for that integrity that they're trying to save!

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Too bad I was lazy around 2004-2005 when anyone could have put up a video game blog and got free games for good reviews.

    Most of the places that bring these scams public are the ones who don't have the resources to review the game otherwise.

    The big name guys occasionally complain about this because then they can't scoop anyone, but usually they are smart enough to never offend a company to the point where they pull out of previews and free press copies, and the other promos they send out.

    In conclusion: "Mainstream" VG press is too damn close to the companies, but the fans don't care so take what you can get when you can get it.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Way to completely ignore the point.

    I'm not ignoring the point, it's just a horse that's been absolutely beaten to death at this point.

    Ignore the wrong doing by someone, I'm glad that isn't what most people do in life.

    Yes gaming "journalism" is a joke of the highest order but to ignore the conduct of those that act in an unsavory manner should not be allowed no matter what.

    Cade on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Well bitching about it on an Internet forum certainly does a lot, let me tell you!

    UnbreakableVow on
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The answer to this is to put an F on metacritic right away since they didnt receive the review work in time. Then unless they get a review copy they can take their sweet time going out and buying a copy to review. I think thats the public answer to this situation.

    This is somehow even less professional than what Ubisoft is doing.

    This isn't fucking school, they're not being assigned letter grades to determine whether or not they pass.

    They'd be putting a low score on a game they didn't even review. So much for that integrity that they're trying to save!

    I dont know, along with an article stating why it gets an F until further notice seems to work to me. People dont read the articles, they check the scores, then leave fanboy-esque comments in retaliation, and go to other blogs and point their friends to do the same. You can say that its a loss of integrity to be retaliatory, but it does force an eye onto ubisoft for their bullshit. If this is school, Id say the scores do determine if they pass or fail, since the public checking the scores are alot like the colleges there applying to.

    I mean it sucks to burn bridges, but what are they going to do, not send you their next game because you wont prereview it highly? Why do they send the game out at all anymore if there getting guaranteed a high score? Just send out the press release to get ctrl+c/v'ed like the rest of the news put up in the industry. Ubisoft is directly trying to hurt the mag's bottom line by withholding the game while boosting their own. Putting an F up ahead of time on meta does the same back.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Well bitching about it on an Internet forum certainly does a lot, let me tell you!

    Yes keeping informed is oh so wrong.

    But then....maybe your right.....let's not post anything, that doesn't do anything as well. All posting is hereby cancelled, this forum? No point to it, close it down. Get rid of the whole net, it's no good and serves no purpose. Just junk.

    That's basically what your saying.

    Cade on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Keeping informed of a thing that happens all the time is pointless, yes.

    It's tantamount to those people that make a new thread every time Jack Thompson says or does something stupid. Yes, this happens, this is something that happens with regularity.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • SlicerSlicer Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    My reaction to this is basically meh.

    Slicer on
  • Darth_MogsDarth_Mogs Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Cade wrote: »
    Well bitching about it on an Internet forum certainly does a lot, let me tell you!

    Yes keeping informed is oh so wrong.

    But then....maybe your right.....let's not post anything, that doesn't do anything as well. All posting is hereby cancelled, this forum? No point to it, close it down. Get rid of the whole net, it's no good and serves no purpose. Just junk.

    That's basically what your saying.

    No, what he's saying is that this whole "Early Copy to people who score it well" thing has been covered to death especially on this forum, and there's really nothing else to say about it. Companies do it, reviewers do it, and sometimes the game is still good, imagine that. It's not like this is goddamn Barbie's Magical Horse Adventure (Which would get an A on its own merits let me tell you), it's Assassin's Creed 2, which might be a genuinely good game.

    Who knows what companies have gotten away with this in the past with games that we won't know were reviewed this way. And it'll probably still happen in the future, and we won't know. What it boils down to is how the game gets reviewed elsewhere and how the general community takes to it.

    And really that whole "F until we actually get to play it" is a terrible idea. Because it gives the perception of a skewed review once they do get the game, regardless of what happens. If a magazine goes "Well, they wanted us to score it as an A for an early copy, and we have integrity let me tell you!" and then turn around and give it an A anyway, they'll be accused of being bought off. And if they give it a poor review, they'll be accused of being biased against it. It's a no-win, aside from all the free publicity.

    Darth_Mogs on
    Kupowered - It's my Blog!
  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Reviews matter so little, in the end.

    The big games like this are so hyped by the time they're ready to release that it wouldn't matter if every reviewer gave it an "F," everyone's already made up their mind that they're going to buy it.

    slash000 on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Reviews matter so little, in the end.

    The big games like this are so hyped by the time they're ready to release that it wouldn't matter if every reviewer gave it an "F," everyone's already made up their mind that they're going to buy it.

    Maybe to consumers.

    Reviews and aggregate review scores like on Metacritic or Gamerankings are actually pretty important to publishers.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I don't know if it matters to everybody, but it took a guy like me who was on the fence on whether or not to pick it up (after playing the first one) to deciding not to buy it.

    I don't care whether Assassin's Creed II is the best game this year, I'm not going to buy it. Trying to bully a magazine into giving your game a high score is complete dickery, and whether or not it is a common practice in the industry, I won't support a publisher who tries it.

    And before anyone brings up the fact that I am only "punishing myself" by not playing AC2, trust me, there are plenty of other new games to play.

    SmokeStacks on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hope those don't include games from Activision, Eidos and EA who have all been accused of this in the past as well.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The last EA game I bought was TimeSplitters 3.
    The Last Eidos game I bought was Tomb Raider Anniversary.
    The last Activision game I bought was... shit, probably Tony Hawk's American Wasteland.

    There are plenty of other games.

    Just so we're clear, when I say bought, I mean bought at retail. If I ever did decide that I absolutely had to play AC2 I could just make a concerted effort to find a used copy. I'd get to play the game, and Ubisoft wouldn't see a dime.

    SmokeStacks on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    At the very least you could, you know, buy the game used.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • OtsegoOtsego Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Well bitching about it on an Internet forum certainly does a lot, let me tell you!

    Gaming journalism (especially reviews) is a joke because people expect so little. The fact that most reviews can get away with posting a synopsis of a game and then an arbitrary score is absolutely ridiculous. And publishers are going to exploit this fact to the fullest.
    slash000 wrote: »
    Reviews matter so little, in the end.

    I really can't believe that for the industry and even gamers the absolute value of a review is based entirely on whether or not it affects sales. Can't critical thought be valued for it's own sake?

    Otsego on
    mastersword.jpg
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I don't see the sense in boycotting publishers over this. They're behaving horribly, sure, to the point where the "F until a review copy is produced" is way, way more tolerable than their behavior, but sleazy marketing is the oldest news in the world.

    Who I'm really outraged against, to the point where I have across-the-board ignored them for years, is game reviewers. If there were a review site that I trusted not to do this shit, that might be a valuable service, but it sure as hell isn't valuable enough for me to try to dig through the manure to find it. Until then, I do not buy day one releases (with exceptions for obvious winners, like Borderlands and Dragon Age recently, and even there I've had some regrets due to technical issues) and rely on word-of-mouth.

    nescientist on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Keeping informed of a thing that happens all the time is pointless, yes.

    It's tantamount to those people that make a new thread every time Jack Thompson says or does something stupid. Yes, this happens, this is something that happens with regularity.

    I wasn't ever going to hire Jack Thompson. I might have bought a copy of AC2.

    I say that these are important to post, in order to keep consumers informed. Now I know to be wary of overly glowing reviews of AC2, because they might have been bought off.

    Evander on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I think the most disappointing part of it actually comes from the reviewer themselves. These are businesses, and unethical as it may be, this is how a lot of big businesses operate. So if you don't agree with their shady dealings, then don't partake in them. Either go without a review or go with a late one.

    Trying to throw the publisher into the spotlight reeks of desperation so badly. The worst offender was a couple years ago when Dan Hsu of EGM spoke of some game that wouldn't be named that they couldn't have a cover story on unless they guaranteed a high review. Not only was this absolutely pointless, he then redirected it by saying that another magazine went ahead and took the offer. Integrity! EGM was a rag anyways, though, so I'm glad it's gone.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Keeping informed of a thing that happens all the time is pointless, yes.

    It's tantamount to those people that make a new thread every time Jack Thompson says or does something stupid. Yes, this happens, this is something that happens with regularity.

    It's also pointless to comment on how pointless it is.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I say that these are important to post, in order to keep consumers informed. Now I know to be wary of overly glowing reviews of AC2, because they might have been bought off.

    But they might not have been!

    Again, Batman.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    unethical as it may be, this is how a lot of big businesses operate

    just because it happens doesn't mean it SHOULD happen.

    And regardless of your thoughts on Ubisoft, this information makes light of the fact that we now can't trust any OTHER reviews.

    Evander on
  • MagnumCTMagnumCT Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I think the most disappointing part of it

    Anything other than "Ubisoft doing this" is the wrong answer.

    MagnumCT on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I say that these are important to post, in order to keep consumers informed. Now I know to be wary of overly glowing reviews of AC2, because they might have been bought off.

    But they might not have been!

    Again, Batman.

    Any game MIGHT be good.

    Ignoring reviews isn't the same as assuming the game is bad.


    I was also VERY disappointed in Batman, but I don't want to waste time on that tangent.

    Evander on
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    See, I never played the original Assassin's Creed because of the mixed reviews and because I wasn't that interested in it. I've heard since then that it was a pretty good game according to a lot of people, and now that Assassin's Creed 2 is coming, I was on the fence about getting it. Now I know to trust no review of it, and I just don't like review-bullying, so I guess I'll just end up skipping it.

    This thread isn't pointless at all, I'm happy to have been informed of this.

    Djiem on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I thought violent games where human characters kill other human characters were banned in Germany.

    emnmnme on
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Djiem wrote: »
    See, I never played the original Assassin's Creed because of the mixed reviews and because I wasn't that interested in it. I've heard since then that it was a pretty good game according to a lot of people, and now that Assassin's Creed 2 is coming, I was on the fence about getting it. Now I know to trust no review of it, and I just don't like review-bullying, so I guess I'll just end up skipping it.

    This thread isn't pointless at all, I'm happy to have been informed of this.

    Orrrrrrrrr you can wait till people actually play the game and post their thoughts on it and see if it sounds like something you'd enjoy.

    Darmak on
    JtgVX0H.png
  • MagnumCTMagnumCT Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Or, oh my God, rent it.

    MagnumCT on
  • WezoinWezoin Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    This just makes sense from a business perspective and all of them do it. They're just not as upfront about it. If EA thought a review company was going to give them a bad review, they wouldn't send them a copy. Ubisoft has basically just made that more obvious. Have they received poor reviews in the past from this magazine? If so then it would only make sense that if approached by that magazine they would only have interest in giving them a copy if they agreed in some way to give a positive review otherwise it would be to the detriment of their business (unless you subscribe to the 'all publicity is good publicity' camp in which case it shouldn't matter if the scores are genuine or not since having an additional review, even if negative, would improve their sales anyway.)

    That said, it does give me an "eewwwwwie" feeling.

    Wezoin on
  • mspencermspencer PAX [ENFORCER] Council Bluffs, IARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    "We are sorry for the confusion, but due to a confidential agreement with Ubisoft, for this single review we are adopting a new scoring system. This new scale rates both the game and the ethical standards of the company. The game rating scale goes from 100% to 100%, while the ethical standard rating scale is a more traditional 0% to 100%.

    Presenting . . . our review of Assassin's Creed 2, and of Ubisoft Montreal!"

    Then a 100% / very good printed in both red and green, with randomly-oriented question marks peppering the space around it, and a statement "this is both the lowest possible score and the highest possible score for this game. We know this isn't very informative, so we advise you to ignore this score completely."

    mspencer on
    MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
    XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
    QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The answer to this is to put an F on metacritic right away since they didnt receive the review work in time. Then unless they get a review copy they can take their sweet time going out and buying a copy to review. I think thats the public answer to this situation. PR, drum up traffic, sell more copies (of the mag), anger the nerds. its really win win.

    I say a better idea is they don't give a numerical score at all. Just a text review for AC2.

    emnmnme on
  • Darth_MogsDarth_Mogs Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Keeping informed of a thing that happens all the time is pointless, yes.

    It's tantamount to those people that make a new thread every time Jack Thompson says or does something stupid. Yes, this happens, this is something that happens with regularity.

    I wasn't ever going to hire Jack Thompson. I might have bought a copy of AC2.

    I say that these are important to post, in order to keep consumers informed. Now I know to be wary of overly glowing reviews of AC2, because they might have been bought off.

    But that's just the point; this could have happened with any company and any game in the past that got really high scores. Maybe nobody -said- anything those times.

    What would happen if it came out now that back when Fallout 3, for example, got released, some reviewers got early copies in exchange for glowing reviews? Would it have been any less of a game for it? Suddenly learning that now, there was shadiness in the reviews for it, are you going to swear it off because of something like this? If you bought it when it came out, they still got your money so it doesn't matter and if you enjoyed it as a game, something like this doesn't really matter.

    I don't know if you liked Fallout 3 or not, and the argument isn't directed just at you, it just seemed like Fallout 3 was one of the most highly praised/liked/touted games around here, so it seemed like the best to use as an example.

    The point is, something like this can't be trusted as an indication of quality of the game, and we already know that most of the game companies out there do this all the time; we just don't hear about it every single time and at no point does it reflect on the game itself.

    Darth_Mogs on
    Kupowered - It's my Blog!
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Darth_Mogs wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Keeping informed of a thing that happens all the time is pointless, yes.

    It's tantamount to those people that make a new thread every time Jack Thompson says or does something stupid. Yes, this happens, this is something that happens with regularity.

    I wasn't ever going to hire Jack Thompson. I might have bought a copy of AC2.

    I say that these are important to post, in order to keep consumers informed. Now I know to be wary of overly glowing reviews of AC2, because they might have been bought off.

    But that's just the point; this could have happened with any company and any game in the past that got really high scores. Maybe nobody -said- anything those times.

    So, because no one said anything before, no one should say anything now?

    Would I love to know every time this happened? Sure, but I know I won't. In that case, between the options "some of the time" and "none of the time", I vote some.

    Evander on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    If you were to know this every time it happened, you probably wouldn't buy any games, ever.

    As for me, I'll be enjoying the shit out of Assassin's Creed II. Sorry to hear about you guys and your unrealistic journalistic expectations!

    UnbreakableVow on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    If you were to know this every time it happened, you probably wouldn't buy any games, ever.

    Again, I'm not boycotting the game, I'm being extra-wary of overly positive reviews.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.