I think this is a slightly naive complaint. Everything the business does will be based on a cost/benefit assessment at some level. It's a business. No business spends money on things they don't think will be profitable, that's the nature of the beast. If they have made the judgement, based on past behaviour, that an outlet may not make good use of a review copy, why take on the expense of providing one?
No Planet Zoo Reviews
- Thread starter Sclurp
- Start date
- Status
So...Frontier should only give review copies to people that will give them good reviews? That's even worse than what IGN is claiming Frontier is doing.
No, obviously not. I'm not sure what in my post was unclear enough to give you that impression?
Rather, I think it would be expected for a business to only give copies to people who have a track record of actually taking opportunities to engage and contribute. If past opportunities have just been ignored, it would be stupid to keep providing them out of pocket.
I'm not saying Frontier 'should' do anything or what they're doing is right, I'm just pointing out that if you're suddenly realising that corporations are profit-motivated and getting your surprised pikachu face out, you have, up to this point, been marvellously innocent.
Last edited:
What you're saying does sound a lot like you think it's OK for Frontier to deny review copies for people who don't do them favors. It's not IGN's job to contribute & engage in Frontiers marketing and exposure of their game. It's also not cool at all for a developer/publisher to have these kinds of demands for a review copy of their game. IGN had a good, positive preview for Planet Zoo at Gamescom in September,
Planet Zoo Hands-On Preview - Cuteness in a Pressure Cooker - Gamescom 2019 - IGN
We go hands-on with Planet Zoo, which looks like it has all the depth of Planet Coaster but with bonus adorable animals.
Apparently that was not enough for Frontier so they are not sending them a review copy.
Threatening review copies because you didn't give them enough exposure is not normal at all but you seem quite eager to normalize it.
Last edited:
I have a rule about not trying to have good-faith discussions with people who insist on continuing to mischaracterise my opinion when I've stated it perfectly clearly, so I'm out.
I'm sorry that you won't get to play a game that you were obviously excited about, since you're on the forums, but if you decided you wanted to in future, I'm just saying - don't feel bad, because I don't think this is the great moral outrage that you feel like it is right now.
I'm not mischaracterizing anything & I agree that you definitely made it very clear, "If they have made the judgement, based on past behaviour, that an outlet may not make good use of a review copy, why take on the expense of providing one?" , "I think it would be expected for a business to only give copies to people who have a track record of actually taking opportunities to engage and contribute."I have a rule about not trying to have good-faith discussions with people who insist on continuing to mischaracterise my opinion when I've stated it perfectly clearly, so I'm out.
I'm sorry that you won't get to play a game that you were obviously excited about, since you're on the forums, but if you decided you wanted to in future, I'm just saying - don't feel bad, because I don't think this is the great moral outrage that you feel like it is right now.
You do know, that the review they did from gamescon was entirely upto them to do, no one forced them to make a review, no one told them, 'hey if you do this review you get a free copy of the game before everyone else', I am at least fairly certain of anyways.What you're saying does sound a lot like you think it's OK for Frontier to deny review copies for people who don't do them favors. It's not IGN's job to contribute & engage in Frontiers marketing and exposure of their game. It's also not cool at all for a developer/publisher to have these kinds of demands for a review copy of their game. IGN had a good, positive preview for Planet Zoo at Gamescom in September,
Planet Zoo Hands-On Preview - Cuteness in a Pressure Cooker - Gamescom 2019 - IGN
We go hands-on with Planet Zoo, which looks like it has all the depth of Planet Coaster but with bonus adorable animals.www.ign.com
Apparently that was not enough for Frontier so they are not sending them a review copy.
Threatening review copies because you didn't give them enough exposure is not normal at all but you seem quite eager to normalize it.
So just because they denied them of having a free copy to 'review' does not make them a terrible people.
I actually find it kind of rude of IGN to come out and state it publicly that they were denied a copy, it seems a bit rash.
Nothing stops IGN from buying a copy of the game and making a full review when the game comes out, but I honestly feel that unless it was all a contracted agreement beforehand that Frontier is not required by any means what so ever to provide free copies to select media review outlets.
I have seen previews from game magazines and such from Planet Zoo and it was almost painful. Let me stress I watched them AFTER I played the beta and had expierienced the game myself. If you sat a gaming journalist that exclusively plays shooter in front of a zoo simulations or things like that, it's insulting to all simulation players. Planet Zoo were treated like a kids game from some, just because it has animals. I even heard someone critisize that animals die in game, because "kids could become sad". (That made my even cringe from a parenting point of view by the way - protecting kids from life and death isn't healthy).
Honestly, I couldn't care less if Frontier denies game copys to magazines. They don't deny them to YouTubers I respect and there are enough players that will review the game after launch. It's them I trust, not IGN.
Jonti from Geekism is highly supportive to Frontier. But you know what? He still does critisize the game for some points. Just because you support a game doesn't mean you can't give "bad" reviews. But the reviews do need to make sense. A lot of the previews of game magazines do not. A lot of the previewers didn't do their journalistic homework, before they played the game. And as an online journalist I loose every respect when I sense that.
Honestly, I couldn't care less if Frontier denies game copys to magazines. They don't deny them to YouTubers I respect and there are enough players that will review the game after launch. It's them I trust, not IGN.
Jonti from Geekism is highly supportive to Frontier. But you know what? He still does critisize the game for some points. Just because you support a game doesn't mean you can't give "bad" reviews. But the reviews do need to make sense. A lot of the previews of game magazines do not. A lot of the previewers didn't do their journalistic homework, before they played the game. And as an online journalist I loose every respect when I sense that.
THIS! Let someone do the job who knows what he or she is doing and who does his homework. IGN was unprofessional when previewing and is now with whining in public.
In my opinion, you don't serve half-cooked dishes to your critics, you serve finished food. Same thing with games. Can the reviewers be a bit more patient or something?
Of course IGN preview'd the game at gamescom for free, that's their job to preview & review games. What's not their job is to promote the game for Frontier which is what IGN is claiming is happening in order to receive a review copy. 'you didn't promote our game enough so you don't get a review copy', essentially.
IGN will buy a copy on release day & review the game, that's not what the issue is. And of course Frontier isn't required to provide free copies but It's common practice to do so. It is not common practice to tell a publication that they aren't getting a copy because they didn't advertise their game enough. That's actually how Youtube functions. If you start a PlanetZoo channel, constantly broadcast it, build a fanbase & devote many hours of your life to it you will absolutely receive a copy. DeLady, Rudi, Silver, etc. will absolutely have access to the game before release & you'll see them drop videos on release day with new content and their opinions. They even flew a bunch of them out to events over the last few years to promote & advertise their game(s). It looks like Frontier wants to treat publications like IGN in the same kind of way as their Youtubers, where you'll get a review copy if you give them the amount of exposure they like.
& hey if you're cool with them doing that, cool!
I'm just personally not, I think that's a bad road to go down where unbiased and critical opinion become harder to find. Where you can control who reviews your game on release day and who won't have a review ready for days/week+ after. The whole reason review copies are given out early is so they have enough time to play & review the game for the release date. They clearly don't want IGN to have a review ready for release day. That's not what he said,
"I do like simulation games. I don’t like this simulation game."
Source: https://twitter.com/DanStapleton/status/1007276449361899521
Last edited:
its not about frontier or planet zoo, the gaming press just realized, that their review service is old fashioned and not needed anymore. why should i read a review, when i could play the beta or watch other people playing the game with all its bugs? (the youtubers didnt cut the bugs out, they talked about it btw). just review it on wednesday, like in the old days in the 1990th.
Last edited:
I played the beta for roughly over 120+ hours, and I honestly don't even feel that it is enough time to produce an honest review, I can't imagine IGN would play even half the time I did on the full game before writing a Review, I think that if DeLady and Rudi popular youtubers for this genre of game dedicate so much time to promoting the game for free because they genuinely love the game, and are passionate about it and promote positive and honest criticism for the game, I think if they get early access copies before the 5th then they are deserving of it, it is not frontier promoting them in any way, it is a reward for being good community icons, and sharing the love, and not a soul who genuinely loves this game would be upset about it at all. I see it as rewarding good behavior, they don't give them the game to make a review they give it to them for sticking with it the whole time in a true passionate and genuine way, and helping to form a community.Of course IGN preview'd the game at gamescom, that's their job to preview & review games. What's not their job is to promote the game for Frontier which is why they are denying them a copy.
IGN will buy a copy on release day & review the game, that's not what the issue is. And of course Frontier isn't required to provide free copies but It's common practice to do so. It is not common practice to tell a publication that they aren't getting a copy because they didn't advertise their game enough. That's actually how Youtube functions. If you start a PlanetZoo channel, constantly broadcast it, build a fanbase & devote many hours of your life to it you will absolutely receive a copy. DeLady, Rudi, Silver, etc. will absolutely have access to the game before release & you'll see them drop videos on release day with new content and their opinions. They even flew a bunch of them out to events over the last few years to promote & advertise their game(s). It looks like Frontier wants to treat publications like IGN in the same kind of way as their Youtubers, where you'll get a review copy if you give them the amount of exposure they like.
& hey if you're cool with them doing that, cool!
That's not what he said,
"I do like simulation games. I don’t like this simulation game."
Source: https://twitter.com/DanStapleton/status/1007391950935216128
Well I remember reading something like “JWE is a bad game because it is a boring simulation game” or something along these lines in his review. I am sorry but what kind of reason is that?
What you're saying does sound a lot like you think it's OK for Frontier to deny review copies for people who don't do them favors. It's not IGN's job to contribute & engage in Frontiers marketing and exposure of their game. It's also not cool at all for a developer/publisher to have these kinds of demands for a review copy of their game. IGN had a good, positive preview for Planet Zoo at Gamescom in September,
Planet Zoo Hands-On Preview - Cuteness in a Pressure Cooker - Gamescom 2019 - IGN
We go hands-on with Planet Zoo, which looks like it has all the depth of Planet Coaster but with bonus adorable animals.
Apparently that was not enough for Frontier so they are not sending them a review copy.
Threatening review copies because you didn't give them enough exposure is not normal at all but you seem quite eager to normalize it.
You appear to think that there is a moral obligation to send out review copies. From my point of view, there isn't. It's the reviewers job to review, in my opinion it shouldn't matter whether the publisher makes it easy for them or not, they actually should be independant.
The reason everyone does it is because in the past, it used to be by far the best way to get information about your game out to as many people as possible. Gaming magazines and later their online pages were really the main source for information about upcoming games, and for a lot of people, reviews influenced purchasing decisions. You needed people to review your game if you wanted to sell it, so you sent review copies out.
This situation changed over the last decade or so. Steam reviews became very important - and then lost some of its importance again as people learned about bought reviews and review bombs based on stuff that you might not particularly care about either way. Nowadays, I'd say the most important marketing vehicle is youtube and twitch. I really don't think it's necessary anymore to have a review up at ign or pc games to sell your game.
Hello!
Not going to comment on any of the specifics but I would like to quickly address some of the underlying concerns brought up here and avoid the spread of wrong information:
Review copies have been sent out.
The game is 100% ready for launch next week and we're very excited for 5 November.
So please do not worry about any of that ❤
Not going to comment on any of the specifics but I would like to quickly address some of the underlying concerns brought up here and avoid the spread of wrong information:
Review copies have been sent out.
The game is 100% ready for launch next week and we're very excited for 5 November.
So please do not worry about any of that ❤
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
... Aaaaand this whole post was "ninjad" by Bo. By just 25 minutes!
I really should focus and not take so long to finish a post.
I really should focus and not take so long to finish a post.
Never heard of this Very Scary Editor.
And probably tons of "reviewers" as well.
If he wants to make a review, he can still buy the game at launch and make one. Not sure what the fuss is about here.
Or is that because he has to buy it, while other companies give him all the games for free?
TBH, that's why I'm not a fan of influencers and such, they think they have more privileges than they actually have.
edit: he doesn't even show proof that Frontier said this: “support Planet Zoo throughout the campaign.” So to me someone is just sour not getting what he wants.
And probably tons of "reviewers" as well.
If he wants to make a review, he can still buy the game at launch and make one. Not sure what the fuss is about here.
Or is that because he has to buy it, while other companies give him all the games for free?
TBH, that's why I'm not a fan of influencers and such, they think they have more privileges than they actually have.
edit: he doesn't even show proof that Frontier said this: “support Planet Zoo throughout the campaign.” So to me someone is just sour not getting what he wants.
Last edited:
I know @Bo Marit cleared some air on this however I just don't get any of the arguments on the whole logic of Frontier 'not sending review' copies.
They have every right to send or not send a product for free. The idea is mutually beneficial for both parties. Reviewers generate money from views and Frontier get more sales. At no point is either company paying each other, so should Frontier not want to, or have requirements in order for a potential reviewer to receive a free copy of the game then so be it, neither party is owed anything.
Even if there was some bias towards sending review copies to people who have a higher likely-hood of reviewing the game in a better light, what's the issue? You wouldn't suggest Planet Zoo to someone who only plays Fifa and COD.
Its all about risk vs reward, sure IGN (for example) has HUGE potential to generate more sales but if there's enough risk they wouldn't give it a good review then why bother? If PlanZoo has enough of a following already for Frontier to not be worried then why not only give review copies only to people who have helped support the game? Plus the fact support doesn't always mean good or positive feedback, but that's an entirely different topic.
So to summarise, why is everyone arguing over who got a review copy and who didn't for X reasons? It's absolutely none of anyone's business as to why Bob got a copy and Tom didn't. It doesn't make it a bad business practice at all, all it simply says is that they're actually looking at people who will put in the effort to review the game rather than risk someone who will only put in a couple hours, talk through their backside in a review (whether good or bad) and have that affect sales.
They have every right to send or not send a product for free. The idea is mutually beneficial for both parties. Reviewers generate money from views and Frontier get more sales. At no point is either company paying each other, so should Frontier not want to, or have requirements in order for a potential reviewer to receive a free copy of the game then so be it, neither party is owed anything.
Even if there was some bias towards sending review copies to people who have a higher likely-hood of reviewing the game in a better light, what's the issue? You wouldn't suggest Planet Zoo to someone who only plays Fifa and COD.
Its all about risk vs reward, sure IGN (for example) has HUGE potential to generate more sales but if there's enough risk they wouldn't give it a good review then why bother? If PlanZoo has enough of a following already for Frontier to not be worried then why not only give review copies only to people who have helped support the game? Plus the fact support doesn't always mean good or positive feedback, but that's an entirely different topic.
So to summarise, why is everyone arguing over who got a review copy and who didn't for X reasons? It's absolutely none of anyone's business as to why Bob got a copy and Tom didn't. It doesn't make it a bad business practice at all, all it simply says is that they're actually looking at people who will put in the effort to review the game rather than risk someone who will only put in a couple hours, talk through their backside in a review (whether good or bad) and have that affect sales.
Last edited:
- Status