Just got the newest issue of PC Gamer in the mail today, which contains an exclusive review of Doom 3. My first thought upon seeing this was, “PCG reviews off of late beta, again, to scoop its competition”, but Dan Morris, the new EIC, claims that they were able to play through the game twice just as it went gold over a month ago:
Well, in our typical fashion, we were able to hook up with id to lay the game from start to finish–twice through, in fact–just as it went gold. Our magazine’s lead time matched the two-month lag for duplication and distribution of the game, meaning that this issue should be in your hands almost synchronously with the release of of the game on store shelves.
Umm, am I the only one who suspects Mr. Morris is lying through his front teeth with the above? And since when is a two-month lag for going from gold to store shelves typical in this industry? It’s more often 2-3 weeks, if memory serves.
And is this even worth commenting on? With a typical 4-6 lead time for magazines, what kind of shape was Doom 3’s code in a little over a month ago? I’d say pretty polished, with very little changing between whatever build PCG used for their review and the final product gamers will be enjoying in two more weeks.
Well, Dan’s a member here, so hopefully he’ll elaborate.
Notice he said “just as it went gold,” not “after it went gold.” “Just as” could be interpreted in a Clintonesque “is” manner. :-)
Perhaps it was gold before iD announced gold. Or perhaps they found problems and it went ungold. Or perhaps John’s right.
Jakub, I believe they’re doing a worldwide simultaneous release in multiple languages. Given the demand for this program, I wouldn’t be so quick to call the duplication lead comment a lie. I’m curious about the disparity in “gold” dates, but not as much that aspect of the discussion.
I know this may shock some of you, but sometimes people don’t announce things the second they happen. Sometimes there’s a reason why a company may decide to wait to announce something until after it has actually happened. This may shatter your world view, so if the idea that companies sometimes act in their own best interests upsets you, please ignore this post.
The version we played was the U.S. version that Activision later approved “gold.” The reason for the lag was that id wanted to finish localizing the game for other territories prior to announcing its “done” status.
The “two-month lag” Dan referred two is in reference to the fact that our official on-sale date is much later than our initial ship date. In this case, for example, the September issue started shipping out on July 4th, though our official on-sale isn’t until the 27th or 28th. By the time MOST people get their issues, it’ll have been about two months since we put the issue to bed.
There is no conspiracy. No one lied. Everyone take a pill and chillax.
Blizzard’s games are typically done 4-6 weeks before appearing on shelves due to the quantity being produced.
That’s an early arrival for a September issue, which makes me believe they had an early production deadline (they do this every year because of their “13th issue”). We finished our September issue around July 9th, and it probably won’t appear in anyone’s hands until the week of the 26th, if not later. It’s possible they finished the issue the last week or so of June, which means the gold announcement might have been delayed a couple of weeks. It’d be easy to coordinate with id/Activision so that the review appears a few days after the “gold” announcement.
In case anyone is curious, there will be no “gold master” copies of DOOM 3 handed out to the press; the only way to review the game ahead of its general release is to go to Activision or id’s office. I’m not comfortable doing that, so it’s unlikely we’ll get our review into our October issue. I’ll probably buy the game the day it appears on shelves.
I can understand why Activision would do this. I am curious about something though. To anyone who has ever done this; what’s it like? I don’t imagine they have some PR guy standing over your shoulder point stuff out to you, but I’m a little curious what the environment is like.
They really don’t want this thing floating around before release.
I’ve never reviewed something in this manner, but I’m guessing no one will come forward to admit they’ve done it, because it’s… weird. I’d be very uncomfortable, not to mention I’d be rushing through it so quickly to see the entire game that I’m not sure I’d be able to enjoy it. And what about multiplayer?
That tone was overly harsh and unnecessary, Adam. The slings and arrows must be getting to you. :-)
Fact is, id announced that they had gone gold on July 14. So it doesn’t take a grand conspiracy theorist to merely wonder how that meshes with a review obviously completed at least four weeks ago. Vederman explained that – the US gold apparently happened a month or so before the announcement.
You’ll notice the third message in this thread contains:
Perhaps it was gold before id announced gold.
I still remember the first issue of PC Gamer I ever received had a review of 1942: Pacific Air War in it – when the game was still in beta. Folks around here have long memories and are unwilling to forgive past sins even when everyone responsible for those sins has been gone from a magazine’s staff for years. :-/
I’ve never reviewed something in this manner, but I’m guessing no one will come forward to admit they’ve done it, because it’s… weird.
PC Gamer has been very upfront about this practice in the past. Hell, they even posted pictures of their trip to Blizzard for the Diablo 2 review IIRC.
There was also the GMR Ninja Gaiden “review” that was done under similar circumstances that kicked up a bit of a firestorm here and on Gaming-Age back before Christmas. In that case, I believe some of the game designers were actually watching the reviewer play and giving hints and tips.
I’m not a big fan of the practice for the reasons you mentioned.
Greg, thanks for the explanation. I was going to edit my post and reword the “lying through his teeth” part because after I thought about it for a minute it seemed unnecessarily accusatory. But when went to edit it several others had already read it and replied so. . . .
I’ve never reviewed something in this manner, but I’m guessing no one will come forward to admit they’ve done it, because it’s… weird. I’d be very uncomfortable, not to mention I’d be rushing through it so quickly to see the entire game that I’m not sure I’d be able to enjoy it. And what about multiplayer?
That would be a very odd way to go about reviewing a game, but if the magazine is honest about it, I can’t see there being a problem if that’s the only way you are going to get it out the door in time for release.
I agree, if the magazine is honest about it, there’s no issue. (I think the same is true of reviews of betas; just say it, and mention things could change, and it’s fine.)
I’m not sure you’re best serving the interests of your readers any time you’re rushing a review, though. It’s a tough decision, that’s for sure.
It’s an interesting dilemma, one that I wrestled with a couple of times when we were given the opportunity to do such a review.
Westwood used to do that. I vaguely remember, when I was at CGW, one of our guys went to Westwood when Red Alert was gold to do the review. He spent two or three solid days playing the game, single- and multiplayer.
It’s a good thing, because I can now pick up PCG and get a reviewer’s opinion of the game before making a purchasing decision.
The downside is that the experience of playing a game “full-time” for a couple of days may not reflect the typical gameplay experience. I’d think my take on a game might be different after a couple of eight-hour sessions than it would be playing it a couple of hours a night over the course of a week.
In the case of DOOM3, however, there are probably an inordinate number of people who will indeed sit and play it in eight-hour sessions. :)
Did delaying arcanum for three months for localization end up acting in your own best interest when everybody pirated it and beat it before the game was released?
And this is why no one will be getting a copy of DOOM 3. The press–particularly in Europe–is often the source of early leaks.
I know of a couple of cases where European press leaked alphas to warez channels, but copies were watermarked so they were easily traced back to the source. How dumb is that? Trashing your career to be a 1337 d00d on IRC?
Did delaying arcanum for three months for localization end up acting in your own best interest when everybody pirated it and beat it before the game was released?[/quote]when you say “everybody” you mean just you right?
