Reviews and Revenues

[royaltyinexile 175]

The latest edition of Game Developer Magazine, (August, 2010, $3.95), brings up the age old relationship betweeen review scores and sales.

This time, taking a - vey small - study of a - very particular - game, Plants vs.Zombies, and demonstrating that, given the choice between recieving $10 and getting a free copy of the game, participants exposed to positive reviews were 85% more likely to to take the game, and 121% more likely to take the game than those exposed to negative reviews.

"The EEDAR/SMU study posits that the relationship between video game sales and profession revuew scores are not correlative but causal."

So, particularly in light of the paradigm shifts in print journalism and the explosion of digitial reviews, do you still value an arbitrary 'score' from a 'professional' highly? Or are other influences more important? Do you even take notice of the games press - printed or otherwise?

RiE

[mosh 0]

So, particularly in light of the paradigm shifts in print journalism and the explosion of digitial reviews, do you still value an arbitrary 'score' from a 'professional' highly? Or are other influences more important? Do you even take notice of the games press - printed or otherwise?

RiE

do you still value an arbitrary 'score' from a 'professional' highly?

No I do not value any score from anywhere. I can't really take the word of one individual.

Do you even take notice of the games press

Only for the screenshots.

I buy games based on previous purchases from same company. Sometimes I get burned, sometimes I get lucky and find BIS. There are many companies I will NEVER buy from again, and only a few who I will support with almost every release.

But that's just me... ;)

[Zipper5 74]

I take them only as an opinion, they won't convince me to buy the game or not. To do that with the general knowledge that most reviews nowadays are fixed or paid for by developers/publishers is incredibly naive... In my opinion. :p

And like Mosh, I only take note of the games press to watch pretty images.

[JdB 151]

So, particularly in light of the paradigm shifts in print journalism and the explosion of digitial reviews, do you still value an arbitrary 'score' from a 'professional' highly? Or are other influences more important?

Most magazines and websites have been either so obviously payed to write positive reviews, or threatened into writing positive reviews (no more access to press events), that I do not value them at all. For a certain game (we all know what game I'm talking about FPDR ), the text in reviews was exactly the same as on Conmaster's website, showing the reviewer probably never even played it, or was eh ... "motivated" to forget everything bad he saw, and promote the PR lies as being the truth.

Do you even take notice of the games press - printed or otherwise?

Not at all, there are very few review sites online that I even bother to read, since I know most other sites will just be reproducing marketing lies, so I might as well visit the game's official website to read the lies there.

I don't even use these sites to look at screenshots, since most sites will use shots that they were given in a presskit, which are mostly rendered and/or photoshopped.

And scores really mean nothing to me from whatever site they come from, as it's the reviewer's opinion, and not my own (similarly for reviews of BIS games I disregard the complaints about how hard the game is, since most of these reviewers are bunny-hop, twitch-fest whores).

Edited August 29, 2010 by JdB

[Inkompetent 0]

Generally I do not give the gaming press much credit. Sites like IGN are so obviously playing into the hands of the game industry, giving so biased reviews that I barely read them anymore. Someone has to specifically mention when they do write a review worth a damn for me to go to their websites.

Swedish FZ.se is the only site I read regularily because they've kept a quite unbiased standing with their reviews. I don't know if it depends on the reviewers themselves or if FZ has changed their policy a bit, but it doesn't feel just as good nowadays as it did before.

What has most effect on me in written form are post-release articles. Not the ones made to promote a game to start with, but that gives a view on it after the initial feelings have settled and the reviewer has become more objective, and with that increases the importance of good user reviews since the professional media rarely writes these articles.

All in all most professional articles could be reduced to a list of bulletin points with what the game has/doesn't have, since the opinions on what it has or doesn't have tend to be too positive either way. I'm a picky customer (at least when it comes to full-prize games, rather than buying them at a 75% sale, where I buy most of my games), so just putting a positive adjective between every three words throughout an article isn't incentive enough to make me open my wallet.

I did for a while subscribe to PC Gamer, but their importance as a news media has decreased dramatically with online news, and I still find them lackluster in the more in-depth reviews of games, mods and special events, where I feel their worth lies, even though they are improving.

Suffice to say, despite all the 'awesome' reviews of games like CoD, Assassin's Creed, and other hyped up games I do (for full-prized games) boycot Activision, Ubisoft and Codemasters. EA is a fine balancing act, but I think they've improved a bit lately from having been the nemesis of the gaming industry. BIS and Paradox Interactive, and some other eastern-block and indie-developers are the only ones getting my money nowadays.

Word of mouth and demos are in the end the biggest incentive for me to buy something.

[Maddmatt 1]

I don't take them any more seriously than comments from 'normal' people. I don't think the reviewers opinion is special in any way, besides better English skills their ability to judge games is pretty much the same as any other person who frequently plays video games.

I read the review itself and don't pay much attention to the score because it often seems they suck the figures out of their thumbs.

[kavoven 4]

(I bought only one game this year (Mass Effect 2) and two games last year (Anno 140whatever and Race Driver Grid))

No demo - no game. Reviews are biased. I might buy it directly if I know the studio behind it, but that has changed, too. Games have become too expensive for me, since most of them are finished after 8 hours and I can spend my money in other occasions.

Edited August 29, 2010 by kavoven

[Pathy 0]

I put less value on games reviews than the opinions of 'normal' people actually: normal people don't tend to be bought and paid for, although they do have a tendency to be fanboyish - but then again, so do reviewers at times. Still, you can trust a normal person to review a game relatively honestly, because it's not putting bread on their table.

Reviews on the other hand. Pfft. It's got to the point where I think a growing number of people are realising that you can't take games journalism at face value these days. The more crap games that get glowing reviews (OFP DR anyone) yet utterly stink, the more obvious that you can get a good review score just by buying it.

Given that this is a topic coming from a BI developer, are BI finally cottoning onto the fact that games far worse than ArmA are getting better reviews (and thus better sales) just because they've spent money to get there? There are 2 main things that stop ArmA going mainstream (aside from the difficulty), in my opinion.

1 is that despite making the same mistake over and over, and over, and freakin' over again, BI always release their games packed with bugs. Sure, you guys promptly fix them. But it begs the question, why not wait a few weeks, and release a polished product? ArmA and ArmA2 both have an unfair reputation for being buggy as hell, based off their release state. This also means the games end up reviewed in their buggy state. It hurts the review score, and the games general reputation, like hell.

2 is that BIs marketing is (sorry to whoever runs it) utterly underwhelming. You guys really need to sort it out.

I'm not for buying reviews, but if BIS just played the review score game a little bit, i'm sure the payoff would be worthwhile.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Pathy

[NoRailgunner 0]

Most game magazines make their living with advertisements and subscriptions.

Those rankings, points and scores are biased - why should I value them?

For an quick + rough + sometimes entertaining overview the game press is always good. I prefer to play demos and watch the forums after games release.

Think that BIS should show more of A2+OA features and possibilities. What about making some useful video tutorials so people can see and learn/refresh great things?

[Prydain 1]

I agree with Pathy but I would go further and say that the Arma series will never catch that big of an audience because of its poor quality in comparison to other recently produced games. The type of things that reviewers look for when rating a game like Arma is what makes them miss its key selling point, they aren't looking at the potential for gaming groups or for general large scale gameplay.

This is the reason why reviewers are pointless because, unless you are a retard, you can make up your own mind whether you like each particular game or not.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Prydain

[JdB 151]

Something else that I value much more these days than reviews is Youtube. I just search for some videos of the game that weren't made by the developer or publisher, and check how the creator responds to criticism in the comments (if they yell "you suck, and so did your mother last night!" to everyone that brings up a reasonable issue --> next). Yes, they can also make the game look better than it really is, but not so much as static representations (screenshots or text) can.

2 is that BIs marketing is (sorry to whoever runs it) utterly underwhelming. You guys really need to sort it out.

I talked to Placebo a few years ago about marketing games, and he told me that publishers pay millions (5+) for marketing a well known title. I don't think BIS is that rich, they're operating in a niche market after all.

Edited August 29, 2010 by JdB

[-)rStrangelove 0]

I stopped read reviews in full detail a while ago. Also, i'm not impressed by trailers of any kind. In fact, the more hype i hear about a game beforehand and the more trailers i see the more i get the feeling the game itself is lacking gameplay.

What i do when i'm interested in a game:

1. I look at screenshots

2. I try to search for gameplay videos

3. Only then i try to find features in a review, just facts, no long stories.

[[frl]myke 14]

Honestly, i lost faith about unbiased tests in printed magazines quite some time ago:

- HAWX is announced as "Flight Simulator"...WTF?

- a Car racing Sim (can't remember the name) was downrated because "setting up the car is pretty complex"...i mean, the Tester said it openly...WTF?

- a game from a company which was the publisher for one game made by BIS has received high rating while ArmA 2 received pretty bad rating....Cpt Obvious please to the rescue.

It seems like today the press is following the crowd, downrating everything that needs more keys (don't even think about skills yet) than just WASD.

Long story short: real gameplay footage on youtube, trying to find all sorts of footage, good ones aswell as bad ones and finally, play the demo.

If there is no Demo, well, no buy.

[jblackrupert 14]

EA is known to pull advertising from magazines and sites if they don't get scores they like.

Ubisoft has openly admitted to paying for good reviews.

I only listen to gamer reviews on forums and sites like Youtube.

- No demo - No sale

- Almost complete silence up until release usually means a console port is coming.

I don't buy console ports no matter how good the reviews.

Ubisoft, Consolemasters, Activision are on my boycott list permanently

even though I liked GRID conmasters will never see a single penny from me

because of their lies and treatment of their customers.

DICE will earn a spot on my boycott list if BF3 is another dumbed down console port

like BC2.

Companies like Bohemia, SimBin and a few other independents are on my

buy sight unseen list because I know what to expect.

Developers who make games for the love of the ART over money get my money

every time.

Then there is this

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/pr-firm-faked-itunes-reviews/1409159

Edited August 30, 2010 by jblackrupert

[ziiip 1]

I usually check out metacritics for a broader selection of game reviews and watch the GT video review. Score is one thing, but what the reviewers say is more important. Anyway, I dont have enough cash to jump on any game that looks interesting on the surface, so I always know what I am buying.

[maddogx 13]

I don't normally let individual reviews affect my purchases, but in cases where I'm undecided, sites like Metacritic that provide an aggregate score can be helpful. Other than that, I do occasionally read balanced customer reviews - i.e. ones that point out both the good and the bad. In my experience, raving five star- and bombing zero star reviews do not have any merit.

[bascule42 10]

Reviews, be it film, books, TV, or in this case games. Are the opinions of one person, (usually), bound by the in house giudelines of a particular publication. Sometimes reviews can be spot on, other times you might think the reviewers favourite game could be "Hello Kitty Island".

The main resaon I do not trust reviews of any sort is simple. Advertisments. If a website, magazine ect has a 2 page ad of, for example, Starcraft 2, and the editor knows this ad will be running for another 4 weeks, with potential future custom from Blizzard, then the editor isnt going to want his journalists panning Starcraft 2. So, if a site has ads, then I can't belive that any review from that site will be completely impartial.

The other thing is, it would take a machine to be completly 100% objecitve in a review. No matter how good the journo is, subjectivism will always creep in. For example, a 40 odd year old reviewer might feel that Starcraft 2 is a good game, but having played that type of game to death, from Dune 2 onwards, might think "yawn, been there, done that, bought the external floppy drive". But a 20 year old, whose experience with RTS is limited to C&C4 will probably think its the dogs bollocks. These feelings will be reflected in thier reviews.

Even with mags, and sites from the same stable there are massive differences. Eurogamer.fr reviewd Mafia II with a 9/10, Eurogamer.net gave it a paultry 4/10. Then sites like Gamespot, will give every major release 7.0 or better, (or so it seems).

So, I am left with the age old method of finding out if something is good. Word of mouth. When I was 14, this was done in the playground. It was "Brillo", or "Shite". Now, with the internet word of mouth is a great lumbreing beast with a percentage scrawled across it flanks. Even then, taking amazon customer reviews as an example, this is highly subjective. One guy gave Operation Arrowhead a 2 star review. Others, many others, a 5 star review, (including the classic "EA Sports" one). So what then? See what the 2 star guys tastes are. It turns out he loves CoD:MW2. 5 stars. So there you go.

Ultimately it boils down to how much people are willing to wait a short while, and wiegh up wiether a game is worth your time. Research. Check the screenies & vids from review sites, play the demo, read the reviews even, read user reviews, check user ratings, ask on you favourite forum: "Hey guys, is this Hello Kitty Island Adventures any good or what"? What was the last title those developers did? Is there a well known dev? Sid Miers or Joe Bostik? Does the publisher shit in the woods? It not CM is it? And my favorite: Can I wait 'till it's a bit cheaper?

Ulitmately, reading a review is a good, or as bad, as asking a "bloke in the pub" if Dragon Age is any good. Unless that guy is a carbon copy of me, or at least shares a great many personality traits and like the stuff I like, I probably going to disagree.

Really though, it comes as no surprise that reviews tend to lead people into buying a product, isn't this the point of reviews? Oh I know the they are supposed to be some kind of super altruistic guideline to help people make an informed choice. But if there is money involved, then unless you have buckets loads of it, altruism goes out of the window and in comes profits margins. Reviews are big buisness. Which goes back to the first point I make about ad revenue. So can reviews be trusted at all? No. If there is a bottom line, a business to be run, then those reviews are going to be fundamentally influenced by that, (as well as all the other things).

Edited August 31, 2010 by Bascule42
..allthough RPS doesnt seem to bad

[Baff1 0]

There are things said in reviews that influence me.

The features or the bugs for example.

For example when I read about the broken campaign in ArmA2, despite the reviewer concluding that overall it was a must buy, I held off buying it for a while.

I didn't need a review to tell me if it was a game I was going to enjoy, but it helped me to know what state it was in at release.

[D00mbuggy 10]

I use the majority of reviews to base my opinion. If it seems blatantly rigged as in a paid review, I usually use sites like Rock paper shotgun or Kotaku.

[mic1402 10]

i don't hold much value in reviews except by players and Good Game a show on the abc. since good game is shown of a public channel they can't be bought and they do fair reviews.

[vilas 477]

marketing question from BIS...

- first answering :

no, i dont take websites NOW seriously (previously i believed) , now i learned on DR,

- second marketing and BIS problem with "super DR and buggy Arma"

BIS is like metal band or blues band or regge band or educated man,

for sure it is not mainstream, it will never be popular and marketing

it is not problem of $5 milions like said above (including bribes to websites)

your products are unique and demanding

most of people are dumb no matter of country, religion etc.

some things are mainstream easy, some demand more brain (and some of those people who came to this forum to bash gameplay now with problems with Arma)

if you play shity easy music and sing "bla bla bla, love and sunshine, bla bla bla , pussy ass, bla bla bla love and sunshine", in many cases you will get bigger money than when you sing about life-issues philosophy, cause something is mainstream, something is not for mainstream

you cannot make mainstream of complicated technically real-instruments music

you cannot make mainstream with things that only MSc knowing foreign languages can understand

thats why you can simply more value your products instead of care about more wide public (cause idiots will come to bash Arma3 is not BF9, CoD11, SoF7, GR12... and will bash it on forums and ... spread opinion it is buggy)

i would buy Arma2 even for 50-70 EU (price in PL was ca. 25 as i remember, if i am not wrong 99 PLN, OA is 69 PLN which is 17 EU) or even more , cause those are YEARS of fun, not hours

or somehow "underground distributor" and money for You , not wholesalers

if you think how to make higher your position when it comes to sales, you would have to ... lower standards

it is just like with digital cameras

for professionals are cameras with smaller noise and aberrations

for idiots there is megapixel and hiper-zoom race

you have problem cause most of your fans (10 years soon) are people who wanna have "sharp, clear image, with big color tone range, low dispersion on rear parts, not visible coma and chroma aberration", while world wants " 40 times zoom, 25 megapixels"... to print 10*15 cm album :/

i hope Arma3 will be OFP leaded way

but i understand that you as company have hard issue to choke

i dont care about websites reviews since DR

but ... is your community "representative to mainstream gamer" ???

i played in my life some games:

IGI 1, OFP, AVP1, AVP2, RTCW, MoH AA, SoF2/3, CoD2, Max Payne 1 and Armas (in 11 years having PC)

so... i am not representative at all

just like with music, cause i have some albums which i listen too since 1994 or 1996

so ... asking me or any of your "lovers" do they care about reviews written for "mainstream" is sensless

it is like asking man with PhD degree from physic "sir, do you find falling movement force equation hard"

it reminds me joke from Monthy Python

older woman see older woman carrying engine for truck

- why you bought that diesel engine ???

- cause there was advertisement and 50% sale

and people in my neighborhood :

"what bands do you like ?" "i don't know, they play in the radio"

compare it with man who since 1992 collects every CD released by band :]

even when it comes to future and politics, many people vote for "tall and handsome" instead of "will he care about my future, will he fix things that should be fixed"

:]

Edited September 2, 2010 by vilas

[Mr. Charles 22]

Breach got 55% in germanys biggest pc games magazine. I enjoy it a hella lot. Nuff said

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I don't typically read reviews. Like a lot of others have mentioned, I use mostly my own experiences to base my decisions on. On the rare occasion that I do read a review, the only parts I pay any attention to are the bits of factual information (and only those things that I can be certain are facts); frankly I don't value anyone else's opinions.

I watch youtube videos sometimes but again only to form my own opinions of the game. Gameplay videos or screenshots can be valuable, but in most cases the primary deciding factor will be playing a demo. To me, a playable demo is the most valuable means of determining whether or not I would want to purchase it. Of course if I have my own expectations based on previous experiences with either past games in a series or from the same developer, it will also greatly influence my opinion.

On some occasions however a piece of media will pique my interest in something. I generally have good judgement when it comes to buying games (or anything for that matter), and I can usually tell instantly when I see something I'll enjoy. And of course, I pay no attention whatsoever to hype.

So in the end, I use my own metrics. A score from some website or magazine means nothing to me. In fact I am more inclined to check out games that are rated poorer because it seems in most cases, it's the games that try something different that get poorer ratings. Still, these are the things I use to make my decisions:

Based on videos/screenshots/factual info

-Is the setting interesting to me (either something I'm familiar with or something unique)?

-Does it look comparable to any other games I'm familiar with?

--Or does it offer a significant improvement to something lacking from another game I play?

-Does it seem like it fits my playing style?

Based on demo

-The demo leaves me wanting more

-The game has great mod potential

-I can play the way I want to play it

Edited February 4, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[mrcash2009 0]

I go by word of mouth, videos, video based reviews, demo (if one is about) and hunting many forums and blogs and threads on the matter (and not always official forums either). And this as all of that in combination before purchasing not just one part. I need a complete 360 overview from multiple sources for comparisons to be honest.

Quite simply anything "mainstream" I ignore (as in, I look at that first, then go and find out the real information from the people on the ground :) ) and that goes in all facets of subjects not just gaming.

In all areas you have the "industry pop charts" whether it be news, game news or anything like that, you will find me anywhere else but in that small percentage of the world which is made to look like the largest :)

Edited February 4, 2011 by mrcash2009

[Flash Thunder 10]

Review scores dont affect what I purchase if that was the case I wouldn't have bought an arma game. ;)

most reviewers nowadays are console kiddies anyways who cant review worth a damn