Honestly, that system is fairly good. But it should have exceptions for reviews after the developer pushes an update to the title.
It's intended to prevent review bombing, but reactions to a patch are obviously not off-site coordinated bombing but instead a reaction to something the developers did. If Skyrim was patched to disable all mods, for example, there would be a ton of immediate bad reviews that are 100% justified.
That's exactly what happened with GTA 5, where single-player mods were targeted by Take-Two, so the game got review-bombed, which directly affects the gameplay.
I think review-bombing is absolutely necessary and I hate the new system (well it's quite old now) because if I see a game has been review bombed I want to know why. I don't need a corporation to exclude viewpoints or opinions it feels customers shouldn't see organically.
If a corporation is engaging in promoting globohomo content I would rather see the review bombs up front and make an informed decision based on that.
Not everyone is a braindead coonsumer who simply cares about controls/graphics/story and would support a developer even if they trafficked the player's entire family into third-world hard labor.
This kind of CCP-style censorship is basically used to muzzle the only option customers have to fight back against politically oriented corporate BS.
Honestly, that system is fairly good. But it should have exceptions for reviews after the developer pushes an update to the title.
It's intended to prevent review bombing, but reactions to a patch are obviously not off-site coordinated bombing but instead a reaction to something the developers did. If Skyrim was patched to disable all mods, for example, there would be a ton of immediate bad reviews that are 100% justified.
That's exactly what happened with GTA 5, where single-player mods were targeted by Take-Two, so the game got review-bombed, which directly affects the gameplay.
I think review-bombing is absolutely necessary and I hate the new system (well it's quite old now) because if I see a game has been review bombed I want to know why. I don't need a corporation to exclude viewpoints or opinions it feels customers shouldn't see organically.
If a corporation is engaging in promoting globohomo content I would rather see the review bombs up front and make an informed decision based on that.
Not everyone is a braindead coonsumer who simply cares about controls/graphics/story and would support a developer even if they trafficked the player's entire family into third-world hard labor.
This kind of CCP-style censorship is basically used to muzzle the only option customers have to fight back against politically oriented corporate BS.
It comes down to whether or not you trust a company, any company, to decide what you see. Why would anyone?