Review Bombing, is it ever a good thing?

[Frindis]

Edit: Wanted to change my title from is it ever a good thing to what do we think about it, because it got a better ring to it, but decided against it since a couple post reflected upon that already, so looks better that way.

Inspired by @Pifanjr's post about Borderlands games getting review bombed: https://forums.pcgamer.com/threads/the-free-time-limited-games-list.2301/post-412220, I am wondering what is the general consensus around this. I'm not just referring to the ELUA case with Gearbox Studios, but rather the broader implications.

Review bombing is a peculiar phenomenon, but I understand why some engage in it—particularly when developers of a specific game have been scamming players or committing other serious misdeeds against their own player base. However, when it is something that has very little or nothing to do with a game itself, for example a gaming company making stupid decision externally, I don't think review bombing a game is the best way to get a reaction, even if it does show a public signal. It makes the game(s) look bad (often when it's not) and it hurts developers and it hurts the consumers thinking about buying the product.

One argument against what I just said could be that this type of public signal might not last long, but could hurt the company enough to consider actions. Gearbox Software want the new Borderlands game to build hype or high sales, so any bad press would put some pressure on them.

I understand that we consumers don't have that many ways to voice our opinions about these gaming companies, but I think there is other ways that could be more fruitful, like for example contacting streamers/tubers (them voicing their opinions), signing petitions, contacting media, different forums, etc. Of course, refusing to buy a game is also an option—one I personally use often and with enough people making that decision, it could exert pressure on a company and force them to address the issue at hand.

That said, I'm not exactly sure if my solutions has a stronger impact overall than these types of review bombings, it just seems like a more ethical way to go about it. I guess it might also depend on what you actually write on these review bombings so it reflects the actual issue at hand.

 

[Pifanjr]

I think review bombing is fine honestly. A bad review is a warning to other people not to buy a product, that's what they're there for. As long as you don't lie in your review I don't see a problem with review bombing.

 

[Zed Clampet]

Personally, I like review bombing. It's one of the very few powers gamers wield these days. The impact is usually seen in sales, which is something gamers don't seem to be able to pull off otherwise.

The most effective use of this player outrage that I can think of is with Creative Assembly, which came back with its tail between its legs and made substantive changes to how they handle DLC.

It amuses me that PCG is so against review bombing, as they are constantly protesting about one thing or another. The problem is that political review bombing typically goes against PCG's political stances. If it were the opposite, they'd love review bombing.

 

[DXCHASE]

I like review bombing if the situation calls for it and there are too many situations of review bombing that dont.

@Zed Clampet is right, it is one of the very few powers gamers have against bad game industry practices, prices, patches, etc.

But more often than not there is some sort of really uneducated reasoning behind review bombings, mainly some type of pseudo-political stance "my data's being stolen because i have to sign up for an account", "this game is woke!", "some company bought the publisher and their foreign and greedy!" etc.

Fun fact, i didnt even look up @Pifanjr's post about BL2 getting it and it seems its basically the same thing i just wrote above.

So am i for it? Yes. Is it usually for a good cause? Absolutely not.

EDIT: So i looked more into the BL2 situation and i see that now you can be banned for modding the game and using a vpn. That seems to be the biggest reasonings behind the review-bombing but im pretty sure its general practice to have those regulations? A lot of games do (destiny, diablo, a ton others), im not saying i like it, but i havent found a reason for the review bombing outside of that, if its even true (im not going to read the EULA)

 

[Pifanjr]

It amuses me that PCG is so against review bombing, as they are constantly protesting about one thing or another. The problem is that political review bombing typically goes against PCG's political stances. If it were the opposite, they'd love review bombing.

I don't think PCG is particularly against review bombing in general. I've skimmed through a couple of articles mentioning review bombing and it seems like PCG is only against it if they think the reason for the review bombing is dumb.

See also this article:

Steam review bombing is gaming's most powerful method of protest: 3 takeaways from Helldivers 2's weekend meltdown

Steam reviews aren't really reviews. They're something way more powerful.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[neogunhero]

I think the bottom line is that Steam review bombing is not only one of the easiest ways for a gamer to express their opinion on a game, but also among the most visible. Steam has entire charts, graphs and aggregate scores of a games entire review history, which is extremely helpful for pointing to when a game released a bad update or did something else that went against their playerbase. YouTube has hidden down votes, twitter replies get lost in the ether, Discord and email aren’t as widely used as Steam is. Point being, you typically have to be a big enough fan/supporter/even care enough to join a games discord, or have to be determined enough to hunt down their email and type a strong worded letter to them. Steam reviews are much quicker to bang out and express your thoughts at the time.

Steam is something every gamer uses, so it’s a mentality of hitting them where it hurts. Others will see the review bombing, they will see how so many people are speaking out against a game, and read those reviews. At that point a person is more informed and more easily able to make their decision on whether to purchase or not. The store page is where the consumer will make that final decision to add to cart or not, and anything on that store page that may make them think twice is detrimental to the devs/publisher.

 

[Colif]

With so many comments sections locked down or closed for comment, it is the only way for customers to have any sway on how other people perceive the product. The astro turfing of opinions to make products look better than they really are doesn't help customers, it just makes people more wary to believe reviews.

 

[Rolfil]

It has it's place as it's the only way that customers have to complain about a companies behaviour and policies.
Personally I won't do it as it can be really bad on the people that worked on it, even leaving to layoffs.

I will post a proper review of a game rather than a one to two line rant. And if it's bad then it get's a bad review.

 

[mjs warlord]

I had never heard the term review bombing before so i googled it and as i understand it , it is the practice of deliberately giving some a bad write up and i for this excerpt as an example...

A review bomb is a malicious Internet phenomenon in which a large number of people or a few people with multiple accounts[1] post negative user reviews online in an attempt to harm the sales or popularity of a product, a service, or a business.[2] While a large number of negative reviews may simply be the result of a large number of customers independently criticizing something for poor quality, a review bomb may also be driven by a desire to draw attention to perceived cultural or political issues,[3] perhaps especially if the vendor seems unresponsive or inaccessible to direct feedback.[4][5] Review bombing also typically takes place over a short period of time and meant to disrupt established ratings that a product already has at review sites, sometimes backed by campaigns organized through online message boards.[4] It may be used as a mass-movement-driven coercion tactic, as a form of protest, or may simply be a form of trolling.[2] Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading.

*****************************************

I wont give the name of a well known individual on steam who persistently does bad reviews in case he reads this and decides to troll me...... all i will say is he starts off his rants with YABBA YABBA YABBA ... here we go again...

Some devs even do pinned threads to get you to read them and they say he badmouths everything they do.

The thing is the guy is so dumb he has his steam profile as open so you can see all the different user names he goes by and every game he has made a comment on .... he has dozens of games listed and 90% of them have never been used or probably only used for a very short time.

 

[PakGamerNerd40s]

In my MBA marketing class, I had read, "Customers are King". They (the majority segment) are the people companies should target, instead of focusing on boosting revenues, and/or promoting an agenda.

Review bombing - if done by individuals instead a group through manipulative tactics - shows that most actual (Steam reviews) and/or potential (Metacritic) customers are not happy, and companies need to refocus.

I am pro-consumer and against corporate greed, and so I always let reviews influence my game purchase decisions.

TL/DR: I'm all for review bombing as it reflects consumer power.

 

[Frindis]

Review bombing - if done by individuals instead a group through manipulative tactics - shows that most actual (Steam reviews) and/or potential (Metacritic) customers are not happy, and companies need to refocus.

Consumer power is important and seems to be the general consensus in this thread and you bring up a good point about group manipulation.

I do wonder how big of a deal this is when we look at review bombing. A big YouTuber, Twitter, Kick or Reddit person can easily rile up people to engage in these bombings and not all are for the good sake of voicing an opinion,but rather as a type of mob mentality.

Perhaps one can also look at different larger groups as a double edge sword. They can make big positive changes like make a company remove pay to win elements in their games, but it could also be used to attack a company for more personal gains or just because they can/want to do damage for whatever reason.

It also brings up another question I wonder about: Just how much power have Valve when it comes to reviews because they can exclude reviews from the overall rating, like DMR, ELUA review bombings. Could their strong censorship threaten the ability to voice opinions and make review themselves less credible? How good are they to balance between moderation and transparency?

 

[Zloth]

If there's no organization, I wouldn't say the game is being review-bombed. It's just a bad game. It's review bombing when people are being pushed to make reviews they normally wouldn't make or to go back and change their reviews.

As for being good or bad, that's like asking if a workers' strike is good or bad. It's a tool. It can be used well or used badly.

In this case, it mostly seems to be used badly. When users rise up, it's rarely coming from detailed examinations of what's going on. Instead, it's yet another internet mob, riled up by somebody who (well intentioned or not) is spouting a fountain of BS. The proper ones DO happen, but I'm certain they are outnumbered by at least 3 to 1.

When it starts spreading to other games, even the ones based on reality lose my support. Just because game X is doing something pathetic with its DLC, that doesn't have anything to do with going back to game Y from the same publisher and bombing it as well, or going back to game Z released ten years ago by the same developer and bombing that. That's going beyond protesting and into something more like slander and vandalism.

Worse yet, even if the developers/publishers make the requested change, the bombers don't come back and turn their reviews into positive ones or delete the reviews. They just sit there, forever harming game sales.

 

[Zed Clampet]

I think I might be noticing something. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. But it seems to me that people are getting smarter about review bombing. I've come across various games recently that have suddenly had a bunch of negative reviews, but when I go to read the reviews, they are all talking about normal stuff that they don't like about the game. For instance, the recent reviews for Civilization VII dropped to "mostly negative" so I went to the user reviews to see what had happened, and I couldn't find a trend. It appeared to simply be a bunch of people who just didn't like something about the game.

If people are avoiding talking about "off-topic" complaints in order to avoid Steam's system that looks for review bombing, that's an interesting development, but it's also missing the whole point of review bombing because you aren't getting your actual complaint across. If you are mad about DLC practices or maybe something political, but you complain about a game mechanic instead, you are likely to do more devastating damage to the game's sales, but you are losing the debate that inspired you to review the game to begin with.

 

[Colif]

For instance, the recent reviews for Civilization VII dropped to "mostly negative" so I went to the user reviews to see what had happened, and I couldn't find a trend. It appeared to simply be a bunch of people who just didn't like something about the game.

that makes sense for that game. As I said in my last post, it changed too much and it needs about 2 Expansions before its worth buying... if at all. Most of the Youtubers who played the previous versions don't even bother anymore.

"review bombing" only ever seems to be a label Users are given, and not critics who can actually bomb a game with a bad review. So perhaps its just the users trying to even the playing field.

 

[Frindis]

If people are avoiding talking about "off-topic" complaints in order to avoid Steam's system that looks for review bombing, that's an interesting development, but it's also missing the whole point of review bombing because you aren't getting your actual complaint across.

I'm not sure, because when I look at Borderlands 2 steam reviews, the majority of the negative reviews are about Spyware. It could be that most reviewers try to avoid saying EULA and use Spyware instead, but I also see some use both. Most don't really go in depth about the issue at hand, but I guess that is fair. They don't like spyware and they think what Gearbox is doing is spying. I'm not so sure myself from the EULA I read, so I decided not to light any pitchfork. I also noticed many of the negative reviews praising the game itself, but hating the spying. Some positive reviews also reflect on the spying, but still giving the game a positive review.