Sega Tells Reviewers To F*ck Off With Sonic Boom

So, not giving out lots of copies of your game for free is evil?

So basically charizard is bitching that he can't get a free review copy for his website.

the obsession some people have with Sonic reaches scary levels. And call me crazy or insensitive but I have noticed that most of the audience of Sonic games are autistic people.

Sega does what Nintendont. :P

It means they want to hide something. Although Sonic games always sell well no matter what anyway. That's why Sega keeps making them.

Hey! My cousin is Autistic, and hates Sonic! But I feel that Sonic has more appeal to Furies than other gamers

@Big_Pecks:

Yeah poor critics have to buy the game like the rest of us.

Sure, that may be. But TC is calling SEGA "shitty and scummy" for not giving people (him?) free copies. Like it's SEGAs obligation to give out free games.

1. Early review copies are a courtesy, not a right.

2. If gamers were more patient, and reviewers were also more patient, this wouldn't even be a problem.

Not like people need reviews to see that this is crap. SEGA used to be great, but now they are like the dirty piece of gum you find under the bottom of an old shoe.

Who cares when it will only sell 300,000 copies each fr both versions anyway. That unadvertised terrible TV show isn't going to make people buy a Wii U for this instead of the kids wanting the next COD.

The Next Sonic game after this may reach 500,000 since it's on the PS4/XboxOne. Sonic doesn't sell big anymore and hasn't for awhile. Time to chill out with the brand and bit and release like a new big game to win back the old fans that are left.

Didn't Bayonetta 2 outsell Lost world?

Sonic Generations wasn't striking gold, it was them making a 2 hour game if that playing it almost completely safe, with glitchy levels and odd physics, which were ignored because the game was only 2 hours if that. Then you compare it to Sonics last few games and it seems amazing in comparison, same crap with Colors.

Sonic Generations had terrible boss fights, odd physics, graphical and program glitches, and the other "content" was gimmick nonsense they literally threw in and coded in 10 minutes. "Missions" they call some of them.

If Sonic Generations was 06-Unleashed length then it wouldn't have seemed like they made such a good game and instead people would have seen generation and Colors as not really good games, although Generations is better than Colors, Colors was not very good, the level design was garbage, and the Wisps were bad ideas, but when the fans only had 06 and Unleashed to compare to and started saying it was good, all the smart people knew they were going to use those elements again in another game and it could go nowhere but down, and what did we get? Lost world.

Good for them. Why provide free copies to people who are going to give it a crap review and cause a decline in sales? Could they start making better Sonic games? Of course, but why hurt their own sales when they know their game may not be up to par?

Reviewers need to stop acting like they're tabloid magazines who need to get a scoop every second of the day.

It gives the atmosphere of gossip rather than serious journalism.

i didnt know it was mandatory for pubs to provide review copies of their games for journalists

Can't say I blame them. Dickhead reviewers today can't leave their agendas at the door before making a review. Oh, and how about buying your own copy like everyone else? Cheap mother fuckers. The self-entitlement is off the charts these days, including the TC.

This.

Get a job, Char. I'm tired of financing your welfare lifestyle.

Angry Joe puts up his reviews WAY WAY LATE and still gets a million hits per review. When people want to hear what you think they don't care how long it takes to hear it.

You clearly have no clue what sonic is about. It's not about just beating the levels. It's about exploring every one of the many multiple pathways to find the quickest route and completing each level in the shortest amount of time possible. It's very well designed for this and allows for a massive amount of play time.

Sonic has always been less levels that contain more depth and richness. It's how the Genesis games were and it's how Generations is.

But yes, the boss fights are horrible.

Remember kids, when you have absolutely no confidence in your product's quality, you shouldn't send early copies to the press. If you do that, you're going to have a bad time. So what do you do? Well, I'm glad you asked. The most reasonable solution is to put the money you would have spent on sending out those review copies into advertising. You get a few extra milliseconds of ad time, PLUS those who want to review the game have to go out and buy a copy. Boom. Boost in sales, delayed negative press, and more ads.

Remember kids when you want a favorable review remember to give lots of gifts out to reviewers.

Damn, reviewers must have a hard time these days... Playing games for money AND receiving the game for free. Also a week earlier then the rest of the world.

But yeah I think the ame will suck no matter what but that doesn't give them an excuse to give a free early copy. Pay like the rest of us.

Seems like sega are just doing whatever they can to not acknowledge the game's existence. I don't think it's that bad that they've not provided review copies though, I don't see a problem with post-release reviews, anyone who would actually have their opinions swayed by them can just wait a few days or play a demo. If anyone doesn't know by now this game is going to be a glorious car crash isn't going to have their mind changed by a pre-release review.

I have to take issue with this. While publishers certainly aren't OBLIGATED to give out free review copies, it's not like there's inherently anything WRONG with the practice. Giving out gifts in exchange for a good review? Yeah, that's screwed up. But nothing about giving out a free review copy inherently sways the review to be a positive one. It's not inherently a gift, it's just putting it out there in advance to ensure that the reviews (be they good or bad) EXIST when the product becomes available. Now, if reviewers don't want to take a free review copy (hopefully with no conditions attached) then they are free to buy a retail copy off the shelf and review that. But the early free review copy is just there to guarantee that reviews exist. Same thing happens with movies. Have you noticed that there are often reviews up on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic before the official release date? This is often because of early screenings in which critics get to watch.

But the whole point is, that practice is designed to get good word of mouth going before release. Sure, the movie or game doesn't have to be provided for free, although making critics pay for it like any other customer would limit the number of reviews. But on that note, the bigger reason why there are reviews available is because it was released early. And realistically, isn't that just as big of a perk as giving it out for free? If giving a copy for free is inherently unethical, then I'd have to say that giving a copy EARLY is equally unethical since both those practices are designed to do the same thing. Therefore, if we're being consistent, then there shouldn't be any free or early copies given out. Which means no reviews on the day that it goes up on store shelves.

While I certainly don't think game publishers or movie studios are OBLIGATED to ensure that reviews are available on the day of release, that practice actually DOES benefit consumers because now the customers paying for the game/movie have more information to go on before shelling out their dollars. If it wasn't for "perks" such as "early access" or "free access", then there'd be less information available for customers to use when decideing how to spend their money. Ideally, this is pro-consumer AND pro-publisher. Of course, that is assuming that the game/movie doesn't suck. If it does suck, then they're well within their legal and ethical rights to simply not give out early/free access. Which is a big warning sign for customers. Because knowing that it's in the publisher's best interests to get good word of mouth out there before launch day, means that most companies that fail to do so are probably intentionally avoiding the potential for good early word of mouth in exchange for avoiding the EXPECTED bad word of mouth. I understand that abuses can happen. But as long as it's JUST "here's a free early copy, write what you really think, no strings attached", then I don't see a problem with it.

Seen retail footage of this game and its very obvious the game was rushed. Literally dipping below 15fps at some points and that's not even close to the worst part

genirations was awesome.

Looks like they don't want the game to be ripped apart by reviewers well there are already a couple of negative review scores coming in.