Battlefield 3: EA Allegedly Tried Filtering Reviewers

[W1zzard]

that's because you are w1zzard and this is techpowerup. you are like one of the founding father of tech reviews and the creator of the greatest OCing tool of our time. you are not some lame kid with bad wordpress skills complaining he can't have a free copy of a game to review for his crappy site.

how do you think tpu started out ?

 

[cadaveca]

you are not some lame kid with bad wordpress skills complaining he can't have a free copy of a game to review for his crappy site.

I took over that job.



Where's my Bulldozer~!!!

 

[kid41212003]

People shouldn't depend on game reviews in the first place.

Game reviews are largely opinion-based.

Judge with your own pov.

 

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

EA just wanted to know which of the reviewers preferred COD so they dont wast the postage sending them a game.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

People shouldn't depend on game reviews in the first place.

Game reviews are largely opinion-based.

Judge with your own pov.

And no. That would require me to pay up $60 to test a game. That is foolish. The trick is not to accept 1 sites opinion. Read 4 or 5 reviews from different sources. Don't always use all big names either, try some small little know sites as well. Then for your preliminary opinion based on things they said they liked that you would like as well. If you think it is worth your dime, then buy the game and give it a real shot. If they said nothing that struck your fancy, see if it has a demo. If no demo then you have no reason to waste time or money playing a game several reviews couldn't interest you in.

EA just wanted to know which of the reviewers preferred COD so they dont wast the postage sending them a game.

See I would send them one anyone, because it means when they say, "blah blah blah I love this *Insert feature, aspect, section, map, whatever*" It means CoD will either have to adapt or prove BF3 is a good game to CoD players. Either way it is good for the industry or Battlefield. I am bias as hell, but that is because I don't like over the top cinematic single player games and CoD particular brand of multi.

 

[Horrux]

That's why I always check metacritic's user score. Much more useful than the "metascore" POS score.

 

[1Kurgan1]

That's why I always check metacritic's user score. Much more useful than the "metascore" POS score.

I use all aspects of Metacritic, but you can't just base it on the numbers. Reading the small summaries paints a better picture. I usually look at a few of the higher ratings to see if they sound biases, then I head to the middle to get probably the best idea of the game. Then the lowest scores to see if they are all biased or if some truth is there.

 

[phanbuey]

I actually like this article... the same thing was done with Far Cry 2, which everyone ranted and raved about, even gave it the same score that they gave to half life...

and that suckered me in to buying a $50 dog of a game, where I could have bought 3 other games that were all better than FC2.

I will take the BF 3 reviews with a truck of salt.

 

[Horrux]

I use all aspects of Metacritic, but you can't just base it on the numbers. Reading the small summaries paints a better picture. I usually look at a few of the higher ratings to see if they sound biases, then I head to the middle to get probably the best idea of the game. Then the lowest scores to see if they are all biased or if some truth is there.

Yes. I do the same. Yet overall, after researching maybe 1,000 titles and ending up purchasing over 250 games from the information gleaned through the very same process you describe, my experience is that the user score is overall extremely reliable, infinitely moreso than the so-called "metascore".

Case in point: Far Cry 2...

I actually like this article... the same thing was done with Far Cry 2, which everyone ranted and raved about, even gave it the same score that they gave to half life...

and that suckered me in to buying a $50 dog of a game, where I could have bought 3 other games that were all better than FC2.

I will take the BF 3 reviews with a truck of salt.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/far-cry-2

Metascore: 85/100. User score: 56/100.

 

[cloaker]

f'ing EA...BF3 would be soooo much better of a game if it weren't for EA holding DICE back.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Yes. I do the same. Yet overall, after researching maybe 1,000 titles and ending up purchasing over 250 games from the information gleaned through the very same process you describe, my experience is that the user score is overall extremely reliable, infinitely moreso than the so-called "metascore".

I do use the User Score a lot as well, especially if it seems like a middle of the road game. But I usually use it to see if it's a type of game I like. I do like some games that get bad ratings, if it fits my style I will play it, and User Ratings usually seem to be the best place to find that out. Only problem with User Ratings is, many of them are extremely biased, you either see 9/10 and 10/10 scores or 0/10, but at least it is pretty obvious on the biased ratings, true reviews sometimes it is harder to see.

 

[Horrux]

I do use the User Score a lot as well, especially if it seems like a middle of the road game. But I usually use it to see if it's a type of game I like. I do like some games that get bad ratings, if it fits my style I will play it, and User Ratings usually seem to be the best place to find that out. Only problem with User Ratings is, many of them are extremely biased, you either see 9/10 and 10/10 scores or 0/10, but at least it is pretty obvious on the biased ratings, true reviews sometimes it is harder to see.

I see what you are getting at: the bashers and fanbois. The flurry of 0/10 and 10/10 in the first 24h or so after a game is released. Of course, there is that, but it all cancels out. It's noise, and the actual raters will rate how they really feel about the game, and the overall score will reflect these. It's not important that the game that gets a 7.5 be actually worth exactly 7.5 and not 7 or 8. It's important that users give it 7.5 overall when reviewers give it, say, 6.0, which simply indicates the game is actually much better, in most people's experience, than what the reviewers would have us believe, for whatever reason.

And for that purpose, the aggregate user score is surprisingly accurate.

 

[Fx]

Lol, nobody who's ever played a Battlefield game is ever going to read a review before buying BF3.

I didnt even read the full reviews of CoD: WaW and chose not to buy it due to there being so many mixed reviews

Qubit, you have raised some strong allegations of misconduct, you should be providing supporting evidence. The survey questions are not very good evidence unless you can show that they were used to filter reviewers.

So who was filtered? Was it because of their answers?

We have only half the story here.

I am fine with the article. I dont support EA's actions even if this is standard practice. EA should be setting standards since it is an industry leader and I am glad that they have been shamed for this

That's why I always check metacritic's user score. Much more useful than the "metascore" POS score.

bingo

 

[erocker]

@Fx. Please use the "multi quote" button. Double/Triple posting is frowned upon.

Thanks.

 

[digibucc]

EA should be setting standards since it is an industry leader and I am glad that they have been shamed for this

they have not been shamed at all. their investors probably see it as a proper move. if you are expecting ea to be an ethical trendsetter you'll be waiting for... ever.

 

[Fx]

@erocker- no prob

they have not been shamed at all. their investors probably see it as a proper move. if you are expecting ea to be an ethical trendsetter you'll be waiting for... ever.

if they werent shamed they wouldnt have retracted their questionnaire and used the lamest sounding excuse ever. I am not expecting anything- merely stating that their dominant position doesnt excuse such practices

 

[Darkleoco]

It may have been stupid to send out a questionnaire like that but I doubt anyone will care once the game is out, the BF3 beta gave people enough information to judge the bulk of the game effectively and provide enough word of mouth to give an impression of the game's strong points as well as what needs to be improved upon such as the glitches they are hopefully fixing in the release day patch *crosses fingers*.

 

[Kreij]

If I owned, or ran, a company that was creating and distributing a product I would try to get a favorable consensus pre-release also. It would be foolish not to do so.

That being said, when the product does hit the retail market there will be nothing stopping anyone from reviewing it, and the truth will eventually be known about the quality of the product. It will only be the people who insist upon having the product in their hands on the day of release, that will be taking a risk.

This is the whole reason that companies generate hype about their product. It dramatically increases up-front, pre-order sales, and somewhat mitigates losses if the product is not well received overall.

If you don't want to get burned, don't buy it until you know what the quality of the product is actually like and any problems that may be associated with the purchase. Lose the mindset of "OMG IT'S [insert product] I MUST HAVE IT" and instead realize that it's your money that may be pissed away because you couldn't wait a day or two to get the facts.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[digibucc]

if they werent shamed they wouldnt have retracted their questionnaire and used the lamest sounding excuse ever. I am not expecting anything- merely stating that their dominant position doesnt excuse such practices

by shamed you intimate that there will be lasting repercussions and damage to their brand name, as well as that they genuinely care about what customers think of their ethical decisions. i don't think that's the case.

and precisely because they are so huge is WHAT excuses their practices. or rather, diminishes the impact. don't get me wrong, i agree with you that they are nozzles, but they also have a right and i would never be surprised or let down by them making a move like this, in my mind - it's expected.

 

[cadaveca]

I am not expecting anything- merely stating that their dominant position doesnt excuse such practices

But at the same time, their position is such that they know how to market effectively, and part of effective marketing is ensuring you get the most POSITIVE exposure you can.

Frankly, I expect such things, and as a reviewer, I know full well that managing relationships with vendors is a big task, and it's not really the job of a vendor to keep reviewers happy, at all.

Techpowerup is a pretty big site in the tech world, yet AMD will not supply me with a CPU so that I can properly market their partner's products. At the same time, I bash AMD's marketing department pretty openly, and as a result of that bashing, I truly think I would be expecting a bit much for AMD to actually help me out.

Ultimately, it is the job of a reviewer to market to their target audience. It's only natural for EA, or any company, to inquire about a reviewer's opinion and audience prior to arranging a review, and I expect them to ask those types of questions as listed in the OP.

A reviewer always has the option of chosing to not review a product if they feel the product is not good or if they think their audience would not approve, and likewise, companies have a right to not seed samples to reviewers if they do not think the review provided would work well for them, and to qualify reviewers to ensure the best results possible.

 

[Fx]

But at the same time, their position is such that they know how to market effectively, and part of effective marketing is ensuring you get the most POSITIVE exposure you can.

Frankly, I expect such things, and as a reviewer, I know full well that managing relationships with vendors is a big task, and it's not really the job of a vendor to keep reviewers happy, at all.

Techpowerup is a pretty big site in the tech world, yet AMD will not supply me with a CPU so that I can properly market their partner's products. At the same time, I bash AMD's marketing department pretty openly, and as a result of that bashing, I truly think I would be expecting a bit much for AMD to actually help me out.

Ultimately, it is the job of a reviewer to market to their target audience. It's only natural for EA, or any company, to inquire about a reviewer's opinion and audience prior to arranging a review, and I expect them to ask those types of questions as listed in the OP.

A reviewer always has the option of chosing to not review a product if they feel the product is not good or if they think their audience would not approve, and likewise, companies have a right to not seed samples to reviewers if they do not think the review provided would work well for them, and to qualify reviewers to ensure the best results possible.

well, in this case their attempt to gain as much positive exposure backfired and had the opposite effect. it is good to know you independently review even though you expect criticism for it. we need more reviewers that can man up

by shamed you intimate that there will be lasting repercussions and damage to their brand name, as well as that they genuinely care about what customers think of their ethical decisions. i don't think that's the case.

and precisely because they are so huge is WHAT excuses their practices. or rather, diminishes the impact. don't get me wrong, i agree with you that they are nozzles, but they also have a right and i would never be surprised or let down by them making a move like this, in my mind - it's expected.

there will absolutely be lasting repercussions. consumers will not forget about stunts like this. things like this always stay in the back of your mind when doing future business with companies. everyone takes this their own way. me? I already pre-ordered the game and have the full intention of playing it

again- we all take news like this in our own way. you believe it is their right- I dont. I dont hesitate to boycott companies that piss me off and nor do my gaming friends. this doesnt quite justify shutting them out but EA better watch their footing

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Just like Dave to wave his dick at AMD, then ask for favors. But still level headed enough to zip his pants up and say, "Ok, I understand." After they say no.

On a side note, AMD marketing is fail and I can say that because *removed incriminating statement*.

 

[digibucc]

there will absolutely be lasting repercussions. consumers will not forget about stunts like this.

look at the numbers ( i don't have em, but look ) - how many boycotts have there been? seen the steam group screenshots? consumers are consumers, they consume. i agree with you but also recognize that the majority doesn't care.

again- we all take news like this in our own way. you believe it is their right- I dont. I dont hesitate to boycott companies that piss me off and nor do my gaming friends. this doesnt quite justify shutting them out but EA better watch their footing

yeah but this is a small step in a long line, what makes this stick in your paw but not any of the other decisions they've made? i can't even start a list it's so long. this is very minor compared to common practice in almost all large publishers. they are the money in the machine.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I don't have a problem with EA did nor do I have a problem with this story...It's a great news story..I also think Qubit has been doing a great job at finding news for me to read..
However I just wish he would post the stories then put his opinion into the comment section and or label it as an *Editorial*

Again..this is a tech site not a tabloid site....but anyways Qubit carry on with the good work maybe a little less opinion injected..

 

[wiak]

FYI: nrk.no is the website of the state owned Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation