It probably won’t shock you to learn that I wasn’t given a pre-release review copy of Starfield by Bethesda. Unlike some of the bigger Star Trek fan sites, I’ve also never been given pre-broadcast access to any episode or film by Paramount Global. I wonder why? But just because I like to style myself as “an independent media critic,” I have no entitlement to that access. Would it be nice? Sure! I’d appreciate it, I’d do my best to make good use of it, and I’d try to create a review or preview that my audience would find informative and useful. But I have no expectation of access – I’m one person running a tiny website on a small corner of the internet (and I don’t always review things in a timely manner), so who am I to demand access to any game, film, or television show?
Some outlets, however, seem to have an air of entitlement to pre-release access. When that presumed access is not granted, and review copies aren’t sent out, they proceed to get upset and write rather passive-aggressive articles and social media posts.
If you’ve been following the latest updates about Starfield, you’ll know which publication I’m referring to – but this article isn’t really about one game or one publication. The discussion around Eurogamer, Bethesda, and Starfield is just an opportunity to look at this interesting topic – and the answer isn’t as black-or-white as some folks seem to think.
To get this out of the way up-front: I used to know one of the editors at Eurogamer. We haven’t spoken in over a decade now, but we were on friendly terms once upon a time. It shouldn’t be relevant to the discussion, but because Eurogamer’s rather sour and sulky article prompted this piece, I thought it was important to let you know that I once had that friendship.
Onwards, then, to the minefield that is early access for critics and reviewers!
On the one hand, it’s entirely within a company’s purview to decide which publications are granted early access. Early access is not a right, it’s a privilege that a company chooses to bestow – and they can choose whether to share their content with massive publications like the New York Times, small-time YouTube channels with a few hundred followers, or anyone in between. They’re even welcome to send a review copy to Trekking with Dennis!
If a company doesn’t feel a publication’s review is worth their time, that’s up to them. They don’t have to share their content, whether we’re talking about films, games or television shows. And some publications, having gotten used to privileged access that the rest of us plebs don’t get, seem to have developed an attitude of entitlement. What makes a Eurogamer review “better” or more useful than a review published elsewhere? Absolutely fucking nothing. As the internet and social media have democratised media criticism, the importance of big publications – be they legacy media like newspapers or websites like Eurogamer that were once considered upstarts – is decreasing by the hour.
But that’s obviously not all there is to say.
While a company isn’t obligated, either legally or ethically speaking, to provide pre-release access to critics, journalists, and publications… why wouldn’t they? If a company has confidence in its product, surely they’d want to ensure it received as many positive reviews as possible across as broad an array of publications as possible; doing so should mean that as many consumers as possible would see the positive buzz. Trying to conceal any product from reviewers is a bad look, and doing so makes it feel like the company lacks confidence in their game, film, or series.
Trying to prevent critics and reviewers from accessing a piece of media prior to release has been a fairly common scheme across the world of entertainment, and it’s usually meant only one thing: the work in question is not going to be held in high esteem. If a company feels that its product is going to receive negative reviews, ensuring as few people as possible see that feedback before making a purchase decision has a kind of unethical logic to it. In cases such as these, denying any kind of pre-release access is a way for companies to shield their product from criticism long enough to inflate sales numbers or viewing figures. It’s shady, it’s immoral, and it shouldn’t happen… but it happens all the time.
To be honest, I don’t mind one bit when I see a smug publication or critic knocked down a rung or two by being denied pre-release access. As I said, there are some publications, websites, and social media “influencers” who have become arrogant, assuming that their relatively small audience means they’re entitled to receive things early, and that their review should be the gold standard. In a bloody-minded sort of way, it’s satisfying to see someone’s ego punctured as they realise they’re not entitled to any kind of special treatment.
But that’s a raw emotional response to the situation – one that I guess all of us should try to rise above! I haven’t, as you can tell, but maybe you can do better than me in that regard! Trying to reframe things and think less emotionally and more rationally, though, leads us back to the same conclusion: trying to shield a product from criticism, regardless of who the critic may be and whether or not they “deserve” to be taken down a peg, feels shady and even unethical. When a company knowingly and wilfully makes that decision, they’re making the assumption that the potential bad PR from shunning a publication or critic is worth the hit – presumably because they’ve pre-judged that their product will be torn to shreds in any review.
Pictured: Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (2023)
This is one of those cases where it feels like corporations are skirting the spirit of the rules and getting away with it on a technicality. Yes, technically no games publisher, broadcaster, or film studio is obligated to submit their work to critics and reviewers prior to release. There’s no legal requirement and no way to force them to comply. And in an age of democratised criticism online and on social media, there’s an unanswerable question about where the “cut-off point” should be. Who counts as a “critic” when any old idiot can set up a website or a social media account devoted to talking about media? If companies were obligated to send out pre-release copies to everyone in that category… well, there’d be no one left!
But at the same time, deliberately denying access to certain critics and reviewers feels wrong, and hand-picking who is “allowed” to review something and who isn’t… that raises some pretty big ethical questions. Any company that has confidence in its product should be willing to subject it to review, and to ensure that reviews are available prior to release. The only way to make that happen is to provide critics with access and give them enough time to work.
In the case of video games, and especially large open-world video games, this realistically means that critics and reviewers need access several weeks ahead of time. A critic can watch a film in a couple of hours and make enough notes from two or three viewings to piece something together – but a video game can take a hundred hours or more just to play through once. If critics are to have any chance of publishing a review before launch day, that early access is essential.
There are too many instances of “big” publications in the video games realm working closely with publishers. And in recent years I’ve found that reviews from smaller outlets and individuals – as well as the general consensus from review aggregators like Metacritic – are far more valuable than anything churned out by a big publication. The relationships these publications develop with certain companies and publishers renders too many reviews impotent and unhelpful.
So this is a huge topic, one that we’ve really only scratched the surface of today. And while I absolutely come down on the side that says “companies need to provide more pre-release review access,” I won’t lie: there’s a part of me that loves to see big publications and arrogant, cocky “influencers” taken down a peg. No single publication or reviewer is that important, at the end of the day!
But as someone who dips their toes in the world of online media criticism, I think it’s important to talk about these issues as openly and honestly as possible. I’d rather see a hundred reviews and decide for myself which ones are worth my time instead of seeing ten curated reviews that a company or publisher hand-picked. If pre-release review access is only given to selected publications and critics, it raises a very important question: why were they chosen ahead of everyone else? What did the company hope to gain by choosing those critics and ignoring others? The answer, I fear, is simple: positive, glowing reviews.
This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Trekking with Dennis 