Jump to content
DSP Gaming

Thoughts on Donated Games.


FalconKick

Recommended Posts

New here, came after watching the Business Update video.

I got to say, I don't feel great about DSP taking in game donations all of a sudden and then doing reviews of them. DSP once said something along the lines of "reviews from people that didn't buy the game aren't legit because they don't feel the bite in the pockets of purchasing a bad game". I know DSP has done reviews of review copy games and a few donated games that weren't even on the radar, which with the current YouTube environment I thought it was fair considering he was turning on his words from the past. Now though, it's open season for people to just donate brand new AAA releases that Phil was going to buy and play anyway like Titanfall and Call of Duty. With Phil's sporadic grading system on video games already degrading his reviews on certain games, not purchasing these games only further cheapens the review. Plus add in the fact the reason Phil doesn't want to purchase these games is because he doesn't want to get scammed by the "greedy game developers"....

What?

So many problems with that statement since Phil has made money from these developer's creations for the last 5 - 6 years, but the main problem with it is Phil boycotting them but still letting his fans pay and send him the games to play makes his boycott pointless. Game developers still get their money, Phil still get's his view money, and the fan takes on all the risk. That's dishonest to the fans, and the fans have done a lot this year for Phil. They don't deserve dishonesty just to save $60 in investing into new games he wants to play but doesn't want to pay for.

Lastly I wanted to cover the policy Phil has implemented to donate said games for now on. He made a list of games, you have to have his permission, and it has to be a digital code only. Which is crazy. So many stipulations to donate a game?

A free game, is a free game, is a free game. Whether its good, bad, old, or ugly it's fucking FREE at the end of the day. However or whatever you receive Phil, you should be thankful for cause I remember when you use to donate/giveaway "games" and the games were never brand new or even in the case! And people were still grateful!

I don't have a problem with playing donating games, it's just I don't like how they will affect the reviews and how the game has to meet certain criteria for Phil to even accept something  that's being given too him for no cost at all. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bailey_Dakota said:

you know there are some people who just have a lot of money, and donate out of their own generosity? That was a kind thing to do, so I think you're nitpicking a bit by saying it's a really really bad thing and shouldn't be done!

Oh no I'm not saying it shouldn't be done! I'm saying Phil should be more aware about the hypocrisy he is facing and be more accepting of all types of donations except the ones that he wants that could generate the most profit. It would be like, a homelessman holding a sign saying "ANYTHING HELPS", you give him a sandwich, and he retorts with "Nnonono I don't like wheat sandwiches, I like rye, otherwise I only accept US currency above $5." If you heard that, you'd be reluctant to donate anything right? If anyone is nitpicky, its Phil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the price is an issue with a game he already brings it up in the review. Like with The Order 1886 he stressed how big of a ripoff the game was for the full $60 pricetag. When games are released at a discounted price he also usually mentions it in the review, so I don't see it as much of an issue.

Still, I've been saying for a while that I think Phil should try to mention how much he feels a game is worth when he reviews it. The scale could be something like:

-"Worth every penny"

-"Might want to wait for a little discount"

-"Not worth it unless it's really cheap"

-"Don't bother unless it's free"

So for a great game like Fallout 4 he could say "This game is easily worth the full $60 price tag", but for a crappy game like the recent Ghostbusters he could say "This game isn't anywhere near worth the asking price. If you could get it for less than $20 go for it but otherwise stay away". It's a nice little touch that would help viewers  better gauge the value of the game beyond the 1-10 number score.

EDIT: I also want to mention that when Phil refuses games it's for the benefit of the person donating that game. He doesn't want somebody giving him stuff when he knows he might not ever get to play it. It's not him being ungrateful, it's him being considerate. To use your homeless man analogy it's like offering to buy homeless man a ham sandwich and he says "sorry I can't eat that, I'm jewish. thanks for the offer though" You're not gonna go "Wow, it's fucking FREE. Don't be so picky and ungrateful". He's trying to stop you from wasting your money. If Phil wanted to be a grimy guy he would just accept every free game donation and sell them for a few extra bucks without bothering to play them.

Edited by Pochomex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ivor_Dehaney said:

Some here really think Phil is completely gullible to think like that, and frankly I'm tired of it.

Gullible to think like what? The scenario that I brought forth about changing his mind on games when they're free wasn't speculation or a hypothesis, they've happened, multiple times.

Edited by FalconKick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it has!

Except for Rise of the Tomb Raider (which I thought was far inferior to the first game), Rainbow Six Siege (which I played one session of and deleted), Titanfall 2 (Which I just reviewed and exposed its many shortcomings, even referencing it not having enough content for a full retail game) etc. 

I am not biased by the fact I have to pay, or that I get a game for free. Mainstream reviewers are, because they NEVER pay. They've literally never felt the financial sting in their wallets. That's a far cry from the 8 years I've been on YouTube and paid for nearly everything I've ever gotten.

Trust me, I have enough experience to rate things properly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

even referencing it not having enough content for a full retail game

Kinda off topic, but this is something I don't think I'll ever be in agreement with you on. For me it's more about how the quality of the content as opposed to how much there is. I would happily pay $60 for a really good 4-5 hour game over a mediocre 10-15 hour game. Also, not enough content? Titanfall 2 has a single-player campaign, short though it may be, 13 multiplayer modes, and 9 maps with more content to come absolutely free. How much content does it need?

Edited by RollingStart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TheTruthCommission said:

"Phil once said"

Things and people change when decreed by circumstance.  Changing your outlook on something isn't a crime even if finances are the deciding factor. Not sure where OP is coming from, at least as far as the post is concerned anyway.

Changing your outlook is a crime in the gaming world, son. That was the core problem when GamerGate was in full swing. Journalistic integrity they call it, and if you have any, it requires anything from not writing a great review for a game some chick created cause she's a woman, to not taking it easy on a game just cause it was free. It all matters when you want to be reputable, and unfortunately, Phil has positioned himself to be on the factual information side of gaming rather than being an entertainer. If he never said he was better than the big guys, then I wouldn't care what score he would give a game because he never marketed himself as a reputable source for reviews like an Angry Joe or a GameSpot.

52 minutes ago, Phil said:

Of course it has!

Except for Rise of the Tomb Raider (which I thought was far inferior to the first game), Rainbow Six Siege (which I played one session of and deleted), Titanfall 2 (Which I just reviewed and exposed its many shortcomings, even referencing it not having enough content for a full retail game) etc. 

I am not biased by the fact I have to pay, or that I get a game for free. Mainstream reviewers are, because they NEVER pay. They've literally never felt the financial sting in their wallets. That's a far cry from the 8 years I've been on YouTube and paid for nearly everything I've ever gotten.

Trust me, I have enough experience to rate things properly.

Only reason I'm challenging your reputability is because with both Titanfall and COD you said you didn't have time to play and would never get scammed from the creators of those games again....until someone paid and donated them too you. That's my only gripe, cause that's a big influence a free game can make when you go from "I'm not playing the game" to "I'm playing the game".

Edited by FalconKick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FalconKick said:

Changing your outlook is a crime in the gaming world, son. That was the core problem when GamerGate was in full swing. Journalistic integrity they call it, and if you have any, it requires anything from not writing a great review for a game some chick created cause you want to smash her to taking it easy on a game cause it was given too you for free. It all matters when you want to be reputable, and unfortunately Phil has positioned himself to be on the factual information side of gaming rather than being an entertainer. If he never said he was better than the big guys, than I wouldn't care what score he would give a game cause he never marketed himself as a reputable source for reviews like an Angry Joe or an GameSpot.

I dunno mate, nothing wrong with changing and adapting.  I'm not sure how a bunch of tools mad about some other bunch of sjw tools 2 years ago impacts my right to change aspects of my life or my mind.  Sounds a bit weird if someone lets goobergate dictate their life. Fuck journalistic integrity, the only integrity that matters is my own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does financial sting in ones wallet have to do with reviews? If one have enough expertise and professionalism then they ll be able to do it. The important thing here is moral.

I dont have problem with fans donating games. But as what was alrdy said, i d expect someone who refuses to buy a game bcos he dislike it to also refuse to play it when offered for free as well. Thats just common sense. At least the fan got what he want tho so whatever. Just dont leave them hanging too long like jak3 or amnesia and play it. Oh and dont give a fuck about day 1 views for donated games. Why are you caring about it when u didnt plan to play it to begin with?

Final thought, u might want to make 50$ patron reward feel as rewarding as u playing the donated games for the donater. Im not the target audience so u might want to ask them, or else ppl might gravitate to donating games than pledging.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Phil said:

I am not biased by the fact I have to pay, or that I get a game for free. Mainstream reviewers are, because they NEVER pay. They've literally never felt the financial sting in their wallets. That's a far cry from the 8 years I've been on YouTube and paid for nearly everything I've ever gotten.

Trust me, I have enough experience to rate things properly.

The part in bold I think is a bit too... hyperbolic, if you will. While I don't care for a good deal of Mainstream reviews (because I do think they're too biased), saying that they are biased because they don't know the value of a dollar is (if I'm to pull all my punches) very short minded. For all you know, they can keep perfectly in mind what it was like before their job to pay 60 dollars for a bad game. There's other things I want to say, but I'm too nice right now to say them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Squid_Girl said:

The part in bold I think is a bit too... hyperbolic, if you will. While I don't care for a good deal of Mainstream reviews (because I do think they're too biased), saying that they are biased because they don't know the value of a dollar is (if I'm to pull all my punches) very short minded. For all you know, they can keep perfectly in mind what it was like before their job to pay 60 dollars for a bad game. There's other things I want to say, but I'm too nice right now to say them.

Well I'll say it, the mainstream guys can say the exact same thing Phil does. They were gaming way before they got jobs at IGN or whatever and have been playing games way before Phil has and paid for every single one of them. And I find it hilarious that Phil is saying these things as he is asking people to donate games to him. It's ridiculous. So no I don't trust reviews from DarksydePhil when it comes to donated games, or games in general. I ALWAYS get a second opinion when Phil reviews games.

In fact, I would like to know who DOESN'T get a second opinion after watching a DSP review, cause I would bet my bottom dollar it would be unanimous even on the TKOH Forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FalconKick said:

Well I'll say it, the mainstream guys can say the exact same thing Phil does. They were gaming way before they got jobs at IGN or whatever and have been playing games way before Phil has and paid for every single one of them. And I find it hilarious that Phil is saying these things as he is asking people to donate games to him. It's ridiculous. So no I don't trust reviews from DarksydePhil when it comes to donated games, or games in general. I ALWAYS get a second opinion when Phil reviews games.

Not to mention that a lot of the mainstream reviewers are actual accomplished journalists who know a thing or two about being impartial and what not.

Certainly not all of them but still. A large majority are professional and their livelihoods depend on their professionalism.

2 hours ago, FalconKick said:

In fact, I would like to know who DOESN'T get a second opinion after watching a DSP review, cause I would bet my bottom dollar it would be unanimous even on the TKOH Forums.

You must be new to the forums, there are some people here you should be introduced to.

Edited by Nation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Phil locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...