Video game embargoes, which prevent reporters from releasing their reviews until close to the release date, can be a tricky ethical subject in journalism.
Something that isn’t very uncommon in the realm of reviewing is embargoes. Recently, I’ve been noticing it a little bit more and have been thinking about the effects.
An embargo is essentially this: A reviewer is given the game early, with the expectation that he or she will play the game and then write a published review of it. However, many of these deals have contracts that don’t allow the reviews to be published until shortly before the release date. Also, sometimes some of the content must be left out of the review in order to keep some things fresh and exciting for those who purchase the game.
In some senses, I can understand why companies have these embargoes. They’re tying to create a hype around their product — they’ve hopefully worked hard on their content they’re putting out and they want their fans to get excited about it. If their product isn’t quite up to par and was rushed, developers don’t have to worry about trying to sell pre-order copies.
I’m personally not a fan of this because (like most of you), I’m on a budget. Even if it’s a game that I’m excited about, I generally am going to wait to check out some reviews to make a decision. It could be a franchise that I’m a huge fan of, but if the reviews aren’t up to par, I’m not going to be shelling out my cash for it.
As a journalist, though, I’m very confused about how I feel. Some sources like it. In Forbes, a reporter wrote, “Embargoes are usually good. The concept may invoke some picture of an elite journalist/publisher cabal conspiracy, but in practice, they let all outlets release their opinions at once, avoiding a race to compete the game/write reviews first, and if set properly, give players ample time to make an informed decision about a game based on the opinions of dozens of sources.”
He’s saying that having these embargoes creates a fairer environment for everyone. In another article by the same reporter, he comments that “the review copy and embargo system can reveal truths about a game ahead of launch, and often serves as a gauge of how confident a developer is in a certain title.” Meaning, if reviewers aren’t allowed to release their reviews until after the release date, something might be up (like we saw with Assassin’s Creed: Unity).
I’m confused about how I feel about these embargoes. You can’t completely blame the reporters because reviewing the games is their job. They’re forced to follow the stipulations they’re given from the developers in order to complete their job and keep up a positive relationship with the company for the future.
The companies are trying to create a good hype over their games in order to properly sell their products, but they’re also trying to allow some transparency by providing reviewers with copies to inform the general public.
Is anyone else as confused as I am?
Sophie Kruse is a senior studying journalism. What are your thoughts on video game embargoes? Email her at sk139011@ohio.edu.
