Topic: Starfield and (lack of) Review Copies

I’m very curious as to why purexbox (and many other sites) are not properly reporting on all the weirdness with Starfield review copies.

For anyone that not aware. BGS didn’t provide ANY major UK media outlets with review copies (including purexbox)! This is an absolute disgrace on Microsoft and Bethesda’s part. And it’s even worse that basically no one is talking about it.

It’s not clear why exactly they didn’t provide UK outlets with review copies. A lot of people speculated it was because of Eurogamer’s 5-point review system and the fact it would hinder the meta score.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?

Did anyone even know about this?

The main thread for Starfield is here

https://www.purexbox.com/forums/xbox-series-x/starfield?start...

@Tasuki thanks I was talking more specifically about how Microsoft/BGS are trying to manipulate their metacritic score by cherry picking who they gave review copies to.

I’m not just looking for general impressions of the game 😂

@ArmoredMore yeah, at first I thought the 5-point review system was a good explanation, but Pure Xbox has a 10-point system and did not receive a code either. Some people pointed that many of the websites that did not get codes belonged to the same company. Both Pure Xbox and Eurogamer are ReedPop. But other outlets that I think are not related to them didn't get copies either, such as The Guardian.

All we know is that it affected mostly UK, which led to some speculation that it had something to do with the CMA, but I think that would be very odd, since the British Media doesn't have anything to do with that. Pure Xbox has always been a supporter of the merger, so it makes no sense that it would be punished along with other outlets.

I'm as puzzled as you are, this situation is unprecedent and makes no sense.

I feel like Microsoft just haven't pushed this game at all (in the UK at least). I haven't seen any advertisements for the game and no one I know has even heard of it. Only people who are either really into gaming or currently own an Xbox Series console seem to have heard of it.

I just find it very strange that Microsoft's biggest release of the year and first huge release since the acquisition of Bethesda has been handled in this way especially with no massive competition.

I doubt it has anything to do with Metacritic or the ABK deal. They should know that these delayed reviews will only be lower as a result of this (I doubt they are very concerned about the score in general). Since it's humans making this decision there is always a chance of error or bias.

All we can do is guess at the reason and I think the most likely thing is that they decided to prioritize other markets based on some form of internal research.

@BacklogBrad hmmm I’m not so sure about that but ok.

They definitely care about the metacritic. Maybe not as much for GP but definitely for early access.

Not giving out review copies to the whole of the UK due to some kind of market research? No sorry I don’t buy that 😂😂😂

Well, I think that is the same for pretty much every game. The average person who's not really into gaming doesn't know Elden Ring or even Red Dead Redemption 2. Very few games, like Minecraft or GTA, manage to break the bubble and get widely known.

And most advertising nowadays is in the web. It doesn't make a lot of sense to advertise Starfield in a billboard, when targeted ads on YouTube for people who are actual gamers will do the job much better. So I don't believe Xbox is deliberately prioritising other markets instead of UK.

@ArmoredMore It doesn't make any sense to block off a region due to meta score though. I'm certain that has nothing to do with this decision if it was in fact a decision to skip UK. It would be one thing to do it to one site if they had a history of being tough on Xbox games but there is no reason to think the entire region would affect the metacritic score.

I think we are putting too much though into this in general it is likely something much more minor than any theories we can throw out there.

I say they don't care about the review scores because the game is going to sell amazingly well regardless of the score or the marketing push behind it. Even if there was some weird anomaly where the UK brings the metacritic score down to the low 80s it wont do much to squash the sales or gamepass engagement. Check Twitter or Google Trends, this game is getting a level of discourse that games rarely get.

Well I was correct with my predictions. Now all the reviews are out the game is down to 83 on metacritic

They are probably gathering data on how review scores affect sales. The UK is a decent market - but it doesn't matter in the same way the big three do.

What better way to test - for the future where they give no copies to the blogs.

@Cashews I’m kinda of confused by your post but just to let you know UK games media outlets are viewed and read by people all over the world. Not just UK. So not totally sure what you’re getting at tbh

@BacklogBrad why would they not care about review scores? The game sells on steam 250k concurrent on release) You had to purchase early access to play it on game pass. These sales are driven by reviews, just like any other game, no?

Let me ask you this, do you think they would’ve had 250k concurrents on steam if the meta score was 83 instead of 88? I personally think it certainly would’ve affected it

@ArmoredMore the review embargo did not lift until the early access period began. So no, I do not believe the meta critic had any effect on the 250k concurrent users on Steam.

I also do not believe that a difference that negligible would have an effect on sales either. 88 and 83 are both between an 8 and 9 out of 10. Since most websites do not use the 100 scale it is essentially getting the exact same score.

I think everyone can agree that being above an 8 out of 10 (or 4/5) is a game worth playing. You can be confident in purchasing a game that averages above 4/5.

Everybody gives the IGN 7 score grief but he clearly states in his review that he recommends everyone to play the game.

@BacklogBrad I never said the game is not worth playing. You make some good points, but I have to disagree. I think there is a big difference between a 83 and an 88 average.

Also the review embargo lifted 1 day before early access, so yes they absolutely would’ve had an effect on steam sales.

@ArmoredMore review embargo lifted 8 hours before early access, very much the same day here in America.

I'm not saying review have zero effect on sales just much less than you are giving them credit for. I don't think there are very many people out there going "heck yeah, an 88! Take my money." and "heck no, an 83! I wouldn't play that."

@BacklogBrad so originally you said the embargo didn’t lift until early access began. Now you’re saying 8 hours before 😂

I’m not being funny mate I’m trying to have a sensible discussion about this and I feel like you’re just playing defense for BGS.

Nice talking to you dude ✌️

So, I've watched a video on Youtube recently where an IGN journalist made a guess on why British outlets didn't get review copies of Starfield. And it's a very boring explanation: taxes.

Apparently Microsoft doesn't need to pay any taxes when it gives review codes for American outlets, but some countries in Europe do charge taxes.

So, why bother sending review copies to British outlets, when Brits can read reviews in English from American publications?

Now, I don't know if that explanation is right, as I said, that's what the IGN guy guessed, he isn't sure about that either. It seems petty for a gigacorporation like Microsoft to try to save some pennies from a few review copies (but then again, probably there was a fixed budget allocated for distributing review codes). And British outlets eventually received review copies anyway.

But if there is a bit o truth in that theory, that would explain why one country would be singled out, and why it would be England instead of Germany, for example (even if there are those sorts of taxes in Germany, there are few other German speaking countries where it would be cheaper to send those review copies).

@RazputinAquato And I've heard that it was a mix-up in communication as neither MS UK or Bethesda UK were asked to handle that side so each expected the other to hand out review codes. DF who did get the code, got theirs through Bethesda US.

It just seems to me that the UK/EU divisions of Bethesda and MS were unsure of who was sending out review code, maybe expecting the other to do that, so in the end, neither did 'on time' - but as you know, they got their codes late.

It makes sense - the first big Bethesda game to release 'exclusively' under MS and perhaps both Bethesda UK and MS UK divisions were expecting each other to handle the review codes for their region.

I don't think the actual difference in score really makes much difference in these type of games. If you are interested in a Bethesda game, especially at/near launch, the only thing you really want to know is 'is it worth buying or should I wait until they fix all the bugs and performance issues?'.

If you've never played a Bethesda game, then maybe the score matters to help people decide whether or not they want to spend that much money on a game, but then if they have Game Pass, they can try for free anyway so again the score may not matter as much. Not trying an 83 but will try an 87 doesn't make sense and its not as if you are trying to decide whether its going to be 'good' enough for your £70+ or not...

@BAMozzy DF were specifically told that they’re not to let Eurogamer use their review copy. So not sure those theories hold up.

I fully disagree with what you say regarding review scores. Sure people on game pass will probably try it regardless of score. But millions of people will buy the game full price OR they will purchase gamepass specifically for the game. I know people hate meta scores (and rightly so) but they DO affect sales. Otherwise why would companies care so much about them?