Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Big Boss

Death Stranding

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, codwapeace said:

Not really. If it is useless, I would accept if someone played even 10 hours and gave up. Let us say that this game took 300 hours to complete, then would you think that Sony's insistence was reasonable. I think if they are giving a code for review, they should leave it to the reviewer how he wants to do it. If the reviewer does a poor job, his audience will lose faith in him. 

 

I wouldn't expect them to play a 300 hour game but this one is what? 50 hours? which is relatively reasonable. 

 

But hey, to each its own. Lets agree to disagree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sony thought up of this clause after days gone. Shu said that they were surprised by the scores and expected the average to be much higher. They must've found out if reviewers didn't complete the game and implemented it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, codwapeace said:

Sony is not paying them. They are expecting too much for giving $60 worth of code couple of weeks in advance, in my opinion. Honestly, the game appears too much work and the gait and speed and all the boxes stacked on the protagonist make it appear as if it is even more work.

 

Sony (Or any other publisher) is well within their rights to dictate their terms to these reviewers - whether they give the review code or not. The thing is - these reviewers are making their careers (i.e. money) out of Intellectual Properties not belonging to them. The moment reviewers accept any money, from anyone, based on IPs of others (whether it be advertising money/site traffic money/any other form of compensation), they come within the policies of the owner of the IP. "Fair Use" or "Giving of Opinion" is only covered till the time these sites do not make any money and hold their discussions on a small scale.

 

Technically, any company can sue any reviewer (who has been making money) who gives a low score to any game for defamation and breach of IP Rights. After all, the IP Holder's business ability is being affected. It's just the fact that these companies (IP Holders) are not taking action.

 

Sony is just telling that if you want to give out your opinion on our product - ensure that you have played it fully first and experienced it as it should have been experienced. This is a very fair demand on Sony's part, and something I see as a service to the gamer community. It basically eliminates all the half-baked reviews that most probably just started the game and completed the Prologue before closing it and mouthng off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kotaku's review got me intrigued and I am really looking forward to having a go at it.

 

This is a Kojima game after all and even a 'mediocre' game from him will have oodles of vision and ambition then what most other cookie cutter open-world games manage.

 

Ultimately 'Death Stranding' is the kind of game which I am guessing can mostly be judged playing by yourself because of the themes and ethos that the creator is trying to convey through the story and game design. i guess this is why the MC scores are ranging from one extreme to the other. Some can relate to it and some can't. To each its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

Sony (Or any other publisher) is well within their rights to dictate their terms to these reviewers - whether they give the review code or not. The thing is - these reviewers are making their careers (i.e. money) out of Intellectual Properties not belonging to them. The moment reviewers accept any money, from anyone, based on IPs of others (whether it be advertising money/site traffic money/any other form of compensation), they come within the policies of the owner of the IP. "Fair Use" or "Giving of Opinion" is only covered till the time these sites do not make any money and hold their discussions on a small scale.

 

Technically, any company can sue any reviewer (who has been making money) who gives a low score to any game for defamation and breach of IP Rights. After all, the IP Holder's business ability is being affected. It's just the fact that these companies (IP Holders) are not taking action.

 

Sony is just telling that if you want to give out your opinion on our product - ensure that you have played it fully first and experienced it as it should have been experienced. This is a very fair demand on Sony's part, and something I see as a service to the gamer community. It basically eliminates all the half-baked reviews that most probably just started the game and completed the Prologue before closing it and mouthng off.

If you think all what you have written is true and possible, would we ever get negative reviews, especially from publishers with deep pockets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, codwapeace said:

If you think all what you have written is true and possible, would we ever get negative reviews, especially from publishers with deep pockets?

 

It's very much possible. The publishers can even ask Youtube to remove the particular reviewers content (only related to their IP), which has been happening for quite some time now. They can also ask the site itself to remove any images of the game or video which shows the game, or to even mute the Official OST of the game from the video because of rights issues. All of this has been happening for quite some time - and these are steps before a full lawsuit is taken. One simple example, Atlus demanded that Persona 5 not be streamed beyond a certain point and YT complied. Or in the case of the game "Ni No Kuni" the composer asked all the uploaded music to be removed from YT, because he wanted to upload it himself on his own channel - and again YT complied.

 

As far as "Negative Reviews" are concerned, these days most reviewers are quite chill with it. They just use the publicity and don't want to ruin relationships with prominent reviewers. After all, they understood that most people will buy games from devs they like, regardless of reviews and in most cases money is only to be made in DLCs and MTXs. They can even play off many of the game's shortcomings with "Future patches will improve the title". In fact, many times these "Negative Reviews" even serve as an advertisement for the game and the dev, along with giving the impression that the devs are fair and allow all opinions.

 

But don't mistake their "Chill Attitude" for inability. Remember the controversy of Kane and Lynch - where devs paid money to Gamespot for certain review score and GS reviewer still gave it a low score. They quickly had to fire their honest reviewers and I think they even apologized to the publisher (SE I think). That was a horrible stain on GS and was almost shut down due to the trouble.

 

Remember, reviewers are making money off of others IPs, and in most of the World, IP right laws are quite strict. So long as these reviewers are just giving their opinion - without accepting money and showing images/footages/music from the game though, legally they can't be touched.

Edited by roun90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

It's very much possible. The publishers can even ask Youtube to remove the particular reviewers content (only related to their IP), which has been happening for quite some time now. They can also ask the site itself to remove any images of the game or video which shows the game, or to even mute the Official OST of the game from the video because of rights issues. All of this has been happening for quite some time - and these are steps before a full lawsuit is taken. One simple example, Atlus demanded that Persona 5 not be streamed beyond a certain point and YT complied. Or in the case of the game "Ni No Kuni" the composer asked all the uploaded music to be removed from YT, because he wanted to upload it himself on his own channel - and again YT complied.

 

As far as "Negative Reviews" are concerned, these days most reviewers are quite chill with it. They just use the publicity and don't want to ruin relationships with prominent reviewers. After all, they understood that most people will buy games from devs they like, regardless of reviews and in most cases money is only to be made in DLCs and MTXs. They can even play off many of the game's shortcomings with "Future patches will improve the title". In fact, many times these "Negative Reviews" even serve as an advertisement for the game and the dev, along with giving the impression that the devs are fair and allow all opinions.

 

But don't mistake their "Chill Attitude" for inability. Remember the controversy of Kane and Lynch - where devs paid money to Gamespot for certain review score and GS reviewer still gave it a low score. They quickly had to fire their honest reviewers and I think they even apologized to the publisher (SE I think). That was a horrible stain on GS and was almost shut down due to the trouble.

 

Remember, reviewers are making money off of others IPs, and in most of the World, IP right laws are quite strict. So long as these reviewers are just giving their opinion - without accepting money and showing images/footages/music from the game though, legally they can't be touched.

YouTube removing videos has nothing to do with legality. They just don't want to deal with the headache. They work on remove first, reinstate later. 

 

All the news channels make money but they still show footage from games (sports) and tv shows. Fair use does not apply to only non profits.

 

I think you are overestimating the power that these companies have. If they had those powers, they would be using them. Or, it is harmful to use the power than to not use it from a PR standpoint. Nothing is done out of goodness of their heart.

Edited by codwapeace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, codwapeace said:

YouTube removing videos has nothing to do with legality. They just don't want to deal with the headache. They work on remove first, reinstate later. 

 

All the news channels make money but they still show footage from games (sports) and tv shows. Fair use does not apply to only non profits.

 

I think you are overestimating the power that these companies have. If they had those powers, they would be using them. Or, it is harmful to use the power than to not use it from a PR standpoint. Nothing is done out of goodness of their heart.

 

I agree - no one does anything out of their goodness. But YT strikes are not short term - to deal with headache. YT knows it's liable too and if the IP Holder insists, that video will never see the light of day in the platform at all. And if people insist on uploading again and again - those users will be banned. That "Headache" you are talking about is the headache of dealing with copyrights. In some cases - as I said for example the NNK Music case - no re-uploader could re-upload the music at all. And that game released in some 2012 on PS3.

 

Esports, News and TV shows are something else entirely. They are controlled environments where all parties involved (including the IP Holders) enter into an agreement before-hand on what can and can't be shown. In fact, major reviewers and streamers also enter into such agreements with the IP Holders. And in DS's case - Sony has just added the clause that to review the game, the reviewer should have played it in full.

 

Understand, both Sony and the reviewer are not charities. Sony has money and sales to lose if a bad review comes out because of a careless reviewer who did not play the game fully. And the reviewer has money to lose if he cannot provide a review. So both of these parties have entered into a contract that will protect their mutual interests - of which "Playing the Game Fully" is a clause. Nothing Else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, codwapeace said:

Sony is not paying them. They are expecting too much for giving $60 worth of code couple of weeks in advance, in my opinion. Honestly, the game appears too much work and the gait and speed and all the boxes stacked on the protagonist make it appear as if it is even more work.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, codwapeace said:

YouTube removing videos has nothing to do with legality. They just don't want to deal with the headache. They work on remove first, reinstate later. 

 

All the news channels make money but they still show footage from games (sports) and tv shows. Fair use does not apply to only non profits.

 

I think you are overestimating the power that these companies have. If they had those powers, they would be using them. Or, it is harmful to use the power than to not use it from a PR standpoint. Nothing is done out of goodness of their heart.

Yes reviews fall under fair use and are legally protected. Just that it takes too much money and time to fight companies like Sony in court. So they abuse it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had my doubts about the game from the start but holy sh*t people are so pissed. Hypocrite bunch of woosies. If IGN gives it 10/10 and the game isnt good they will say bought journalism" and when they gave it a low score fanboys be like "didnt get paid enough", "havent even finished the game" types of excuses. :rofl:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...