There’s no better way to ensure your game will get plenty of attention than by trying to condition receipt of review copies on favorable coverage. The entirely wrong sort of attention, as it turns out, and as EA just found out after trying to foist a questionable questionnaire onto GameReactor in exchange for review code. The material in question is just below:
Did the reviewer personally review BFBC2 or Black Ops?
What score did he give it?
What is his past experience with Battlefield?
Is he a fan of Battlefield?
Is he a fan of Call of Duty?
Has he been playing BF Franchise? BFBC2? 1943? BF2?
Has he expressed enthusiasm or concern for BF3? What are they?
Did he play the beta? Did he enjoy it / get frustrated with it?
What is his present view on the game?
The Controversy of Conditional Review Copies
This sort of thing is fairly understandable if you’re Eidos, you just released Kane & Lynch and Jeff Gerstmann just went and truthed all over it. But Battlefield 3, EA? Seriously?
The gaming community has always valued transparency and honesty in reviews. When a company tries to manipulate this process, it not only undermines the credibility of the reviewers but also the trust of the audience. EA’s attempt to control the narrative around Battlefield 3 by issuing a questionnaire to GameReactor is a prime example of how not to handle game reviews. The questions posed were clearly designed to gauge the potential positivity of the review, which is a blatant attempt to influence the outcome.
The Importance of Unbiased Reviews
Unbiased reviews are crucial for the gaming industry. They provide potential buyers with an honest assessment of a game’s quality, helping them make informed purchasing decisions. When companies like EA try to interfere with this process, it can lead to a loss of trust not only in the company but also in the entire review system.
For instance, the questionnaire asked if the reviewer had played the beta and whether they enjoyed it or got frustrated with it. This question seems innocent on the surface, but it can be seen as a way to filter out reviewers who might give a negative review based on their beta experience. Similarly, asking about the reviewer’s past experience with the Battlefield franchise and their opinions on Call of Duty could be used to weed out those who might not be as favorable towards Battlefield 3.
Moreover, the gaming community is quick to pick up on these tactics. When news broke about EA’s questionnaire, it sparked a significant backlash. Gamers took to forums and social media to express their disappointment and frustration with EA’s approach. This kind of negative publicity can be far more damaging than a few unfavorable reviews.
Examples from the past show that this is not an isolated incident. The Jeff Gerstmann and Kane & Lynch controversy is a well-known case where a reviewer was allegedly fired for giving a negative review, leading to widespread criticism and a loss of credibility for the involved parties. EA’s attempt with Battlefield 3 is reminiscent of this, showing that some companies still haven’t learned the importance of unbiased reviews.
In conclusion, while it’s understandable that companies want their games to be reviewed positively, trying to manipulate the review process is not the way to achieve this. Honest and unbiased reviews are essential for maintaining trust and credibility in the gaming industry. EA’s attempt to control the narrative around Battlefield 3 by issuing a questionnaire to GameReactor was a misguided effort that ultimately backfired, highlighting the importance of transparency and honesty in game reviews.
Source bf3blog
Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals
Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.