this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
78 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
8581 readers
499 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they’re essentially charging double for season pass by splitting it into two season halves. Player are right to be upset, that’s just greedy.
Yet the article goes on to say, “In short, the news has hardly gone over well, and if you check out Apex Legends’ Steam page right now, its recent reviews have fallen to “Overwhelmingly Negative,” a distinction reserved for either the absolute worst games or the targets of Steam bombings. The latter happens to be the case here.”
Please explain to me how this is “review bombing”.
Isn't it the definition of review bombing? Review bombing is a concentrated spike in negative reviews due to something the community doesn't like usually. It doesn't have to be a negative thing and in this case seems quite justified. That still doesn't make it normal organic review behavior.
When else would they post a negative review? The negative change just happened, so it makes sense that players would be posting negative reviews now.
As for why people are responding negatively to this being called review bombing, a lot times the term is used to dismiss the bad reviews. "Those aren't real negative reviews, we just got review bombed. Those players sure are fickle, aren't they?" Basically calling it review bombing just makes it sound like the negative reviews aren't legitimate and don't have a valid reason to recommend against the game.
I guess I just don't agree that the word invalidates the sentiment behind it. It's just a term to describe the behavior. Maybe I'm naive about that, but there it is.
People post negative reviews all the time, like if you tried the game and didn't like it. The bombing part is the concentrated spike.
If everyone writes a review in response to a terrible change in an update, it's not a review bomb.
If none of these players knew about this, but started reviewing this game or a different game from the same company, it's review bombing.
A concentrated spike in reviews =\= review bombing.
I think the word I should have used is coordinated, not concentrated.
While I can appreciate your definition, it doesn't match the definitions I've heard or that came up when I looked it up. What you're talking about definitely falls under the umbrella of review bombing, but the broader definition is more inclusive than that. It also doesn't imply the bombing is unjustified or without merit, simply that it's a coordinated disruptive tactic to try and force a change. I think review bombing is a good thing, and is one of the few tactics consumers have to force shitty companies to listen.
You might argue that these new reviews weren't coordinated, and I think that's possible. There's no way for me to know that for sure, but it's hard to imagine that many negative reviews happening all at once without some amount of coordinated effort.
It’s a review of the product as it exists. Sounds pretty organic.
I'm curious why you're reacting to the term so negatively? Do you feel like it undermines the message being sent to call it review bombing?
It's dismissive of people's valid opinions of the game. Review bombing is more when people brigade reviews for things that have nothing to do with the game itself, like people bombing Harry Potter because they were pissed about JK Rowling's tweets.
Ok, I can see that distinction. I'm definitely not dismissing their opinions. I don't personally see any issue with the term being used like this, and I think people are review bombing it for a good reason. I can understand where you're coming from though now that you've explained it.