The Problem with Review Embargoes

In the world of video game journalism, we all have to deal with review embargoes. For those who don't know, this is when a video game publisher sets a date for when reviews are allowed to be posted. They feel it's necessary, because the press typically gets a hold of a few review copies well before official release dates. There are a few different reasons cited as to why this is the case. One point of the embargo is to ensure gamers can't just binge a reviewer's Let's Play of the game before launch and avoid buying it altogether.

But if that's the case, then why does it feel so shady?

"You got any more of them game reviews?"

There's something particularly askew about review embargoes. This is especially true for embargoes that stretch all the way to the release date. In such cases, it's clear that publishers don't want gamers to read any reviews or opinions about the game before it hits the shelves. "But wouldn't early reviews help to hype up an upcoming release?" you ask, out loud, to your computer screen. "Of course they would," I answer, in text, because I'm not insane, "but it only would if the game is any good."

That sticky, gross feeling that comes with a review embargo is the idea that even the publisher doesn't think their game is any good. The move comes off as hoping the gaming public runs out and buys the game on launch day before any reviews even hit the scene. Given, this surely isn't always the case. There are plenty of amazing games that have followed this practice. The bad news is that this is becoming more and more common. And the more often this happens, the less we'll know about new games before being expected to buy them.

But by all means, go ahead and continue pre-ordering your games.