Starfield review controversy traces game journalism's orbital decay | This Week in Business
01.09.2023 - 15:19
/ gamesindustry.biz
/ Tom Phillips
/ Charles
This Week in Business is our weekly recap column, a collection of stats and quotes from recent stories presented with a dash of opinion (sometimes more than a dash) and intended to shed light on various trends. Check back every Friday for a new entry.
Starfield launches today for those who paid extra for the Premium edition, so in the grand tradition of Bethesda games, we're going to talk about how broken stuff is.
No, not Starfield stuff. For all I know, the game has been polished to a shine with nary a glitch in sight.
Instead, we're going to talk about how buggy and broken games journalism is, prompted in part by a mini-scandal around who got review codes in advance, and who didn't.
QUOTE | "Access to the game appears to have been heavily restricted in the UK, where Bethesda has also not provided copies of Starfield to other websites and YouTube channels owned by Eurogamer parent company Reedpop." – On Tuesday, Eurogamer editor-in-chief Tom Phillips explained to readers that Eurogamer would not have a review of Starfield in time for Thursday's embargo.
Writers from UK-based outlets The Guardian, Edge, and Metro also publicly confirmed they had not received review codes of the game.
GamesIndustry.biz also did not receive a review code, which could be because we're also owned by Reedpop, because we don't actually review games, or because the one time we did run a review, we gave the biggest game of the year a zero out of ten.
There's been a lot of speculation about why Bethesda snubbed specifically these sites for Starfield, and a lot of it doesn't really hold water.
Was it revenge for scathing reviews of Bethesda Game Studios' last big title, Fallout 76? That game reviewed poorly everywhere, and some of the American outlets who got review codes were among its biggest detractors.
IGN and GameSpot came in on the low end of the Fallout 76 reviews with a 5 out of 10 and a 4 out of 10, respectively. They're also two of the harshest early assessors of Starfield, both giving Bethesda's latest a 7 out of 10.
Was it a roundabout way of following through on Microsoft's implied threats to the UK after the country's regulator blocked the Activision Blizzard acquisition? I have all the time in the world for stories about massive companies being laughably petty about all slights both real and perceived, but even I find that one far-fetched.
Was it targeting the UK for a more deserved transgression, like Peppa Pig? If so, there would be no reason to be so secretive about the motive and risk coming off as the bad guy here.
Does Starfield's narrative cast Space Britain as the evil empire and climax with you hunting down and killing King Charles, who has been kept alive as a Futurama-like head in a jar?