| Aura7541 said: Um.... the sites can update their reviews, you know? Just because you download a patch, doesn't mean you have to do the entire review again. Did you not see Polygon update their reviews on Driveclub and Halo: MCC? And paying 100s more to journalists because a new patch came out is purely hyperbolic. I have no idea where you got that from and you should know better than that. Example "UPDATE: We have recently downloaded the Day One patch and all the bugs that used to plague the game no longer occur." Simple, concise, and to the point. |
If you have no idea where I came up with that, you should probably not be telling me I should know better, you should also not call it "purely hyperbolic." A better option would be to ask me, because you don't know, and then make a comment about my description for how I came up with that.
But because I'm nice I'll try to explain it to you.
First there is the cost for the journalist. I don't know exactly how they get paid, whether it's a flat amount, or hourly. As well as if they are paid to play the game, or just paid for writting the article(if you think this cost is under 100 bucks you are fooling youself). Plus there is the issue of internet traffic. Obviously the reviews that come out first are gonna get MORE traffic than those that come later.
As for your update....well, that's up to the journalist. If they want to play the game from start to finish and then update their review they can, if they want to just read the patch notes and just assume the bugs are fixed, they can. Or if these bug fixes are purely endgame fixes, then maybe they can test that without having to start over. Either way, it cost more money to update reviews, and would it be better for this journalist to update their old review, or to write a new article? Ultimately it comes down to business, and most likely, what will get them more traffic, and the answer to that is likely to not wait till day1 to start playing the game.
Something...Something...Games...Something
