Following up last Friday's report that Fable 2 had been spotted on shelves in Kmart stores Australia wide (a week before the official release date, October 23, 2008) - gaming blog Kotaku have word that the street-date-breaking stores will be paying for the slip up.

The penalty? Fines of $1,000 per copy sold and a delay on shipments of the upcoming, and hotly anticipated Gears of War 2. A steep punishment and a tad confusing, as it's strange that any publisher would want to prevent sales of an upcoming game in any way.

Back in 2006, Gears of War developer Epic named November 12th "emergence day" (a term coined for the game's release date). Yet even though such a fuss was made over that particular day, Epic explained that some stores would likely be stocking it earlier.

to get to stores in time for that the actual game will ship on November 7th. Some stores, like EB & Gamestop, will, at their own additional expense, park their trucks at Microsoft's warehouse and start taking deliveries at midnight on the 7th in an effort to get it to their stores right away - in some cases possibly even that day or a day or two later.

If it wasn't a problem for Gears of War, why are strict release dates such a big deal in this instance and others? What does everybody think? Do you like that all stores have to wait or would you prefer the opportunity to pick up a game early? Did anyone here manage to scoop up a copy of Fable 2 last Friday?

Oh yeah, we also have a new trailer for Fable 2 today, and if you haven't already take a look at AusGamers exclusive hands-on gameplay session with Peter Molyneux at the 2008 Tokyo Games Show.

If the game is already at stores, why would you delay it further? Especially by an entire week. Thats just promoting piracy.

The GOW thing sounds like EB/Gamestop were just making sure that the copies would be at all their stores on time, not that they would be selling it early.

It's a fair punishment, all retailers are told the sale date, and they agree to it. if online stores can't start selling it till the release date, and no one else can, and you just decide to ignore it? cop the punishment.

as it's strange that any publisher would want to prevent sales of an upcoming game in any way.

It's not as if you can't get fable 2 from anywhere else. If you want a copy of Fable 2 and K-mart don't stock it, you just get it from somewhere else.. So really you are punishing K-mart by having them lose sales, and the publisher won't get affected.

why are strict release dates such a big deal in this instance and others?

Probably just a formality, gives time for the stores to get the product earlier and start processing it before it goes on shelves. Also saves the stores from getting 1000 extra calls a day "erm you got Fable2 yet?" if there is no official release date, when most enthusiasts will know the quoted release date by the publisher.

I think alot of it also has to do with publishers advertising a release date and marketing campaigns targeting hype towards a specific date.

Poor kmart :( They always had the cheapest games back when i had an Xbox.

I'll be pirating this game anyway, just to see if it as s*** as the first one.

Hah, my mate picked up one of them. BL KMart.

It is an unwritten rule that Target and K-mart have music, movies, and games, selling before the release date. You want to sell your products at K-mart then you should just accept this.

Actually that was a joke but then I realised I could make it serious.

If you sell something to somebody, you cannot tell them what they can do with it, or when and to whom they can on sell it.



last edited by thermite at 16:35:58 20/Oct/08

If you sell something to somebody, you cannot tell them what they can do with it, or when and to whom they can on sell it.

you're a f***ing communist!

I think alot of it also has to do with publishers advertising a release date and marketing campaigns targeting hype towards a specific date.

I agree its a marketing technique, but not for your reasons. I think its more they know their sales will get hurt when someone who bought the game early hopes on a forum and says "its s***". Before the sales start, its all positive, soon as a game goes on sale it gets hammered (if its s***). I think its more insecurities on the part of the publishers, probably a good sign the game is s***.

So is Fable 2 s***?

If you sell something to somebody, you cannot tell them what they can do with it, or when and to whom they can on sell it.

It's called "conditions of sale".

That trailer looks sweet. Always liked Fable, wish I had an xbox 360... 80 buck xbox from EB will have to do :P

Sounds like the publisher is punishing its retailers and customers in favor of its marketing department. I eagerly await developers jumping aboard digital distribution and selling direct to their customers, while the price-hiking middlemen shrivel up and die.

"why are strict release dates such a big deal in this instance and others?"

nF has I think hit part of the reason. Look at how reviewers (particularly of ordinary or sub quality games) have been gagged lately. They want sales based on their own hyping of the game, not what the game is really like.

Also, if it's released earlier somewhere then it can end up on p2p even before the official release date thus hurting sales (if the industry is to be believed). The publishers know the DRM won't stop it, so they need to get as many Day 0 sales as they can before the game is cracked.

I wish I waited for reviews on Spore instead of buying on day 0.
Damn marketing!
+1 for digital distribution too

I wish it did come out last week for real, I probably would have bought it. As it stands theres just too many other games I want to play coming out this week the same time as Fable, so now I'm probably going to give it a miss.

red alert 3
far cry 2
little big planet (unless it is delayed?)

And dead space

Oh and Fallout 3 of course

last edited by Khel at 19:43:58 20/Oct/08

I'm already too busy playing Saints Row 2 to check out any of them :( - Yeah, I can't believe how much fun I've having either.

I personally like the idea of a strict release date. It gives all retailers a fair chance.

fable 2 for pc?

I personally like the idea of a strict release date. It gives all retailers a fair chance.

I agree. It also stops some retailers from using their market power to get a few days on everyone else and price gouge users.

I think if all retailers get it the same time it'll be better for gamers because there'll be more opportunity for looking for good deals as they try to compete amongst themselves.

Also, its just stupid if some places get it and some places don't. I don't want to have to play a guessing game as to which retailer to go to in order to find a copy of a game. With all the hullabaloo about release dates, if a game is scheduled for release on the Xth of Xtember, I want to know that I can go to my closest retailer of video games and pick up a copy on that day - end of story.

fable 2 for pc?

360 only

Also, its just stupid if some places get it and some places don't. I don't want to have to play a guessing game as to which retailer to go to in order to find a copy of a game. With all the hullabaloo about release dates, if a game is scheduled for release on the Xth of Xtember, I want to know that I can go to my closest retailer of video games and pick up a copy on that day - end of story.

f***, stop whinging and just download it like everyone else

ah, welcome to trog

"It's a fair punishment, all retailers are told the sale date, and they agree to it. if online stores can't start selling it till the release date, and no one else can, and you just decide to ignore it? cop the punishment."

That kinda sums it up in a nutshell dont yas think?

I don't think there's just one reason for strict release dates.

More like a few reasons (listed in no particular order):

1) Reduce piracy (makes little difference in reality)
2) Don't allow certain retailers any time advantage over another (keeps them all happy)
3) Not to compromise the pre-order system (retailers love getting people to commit to purchases early)
4) There are probably some promotions related to the release date
5) Network/support infrastructure might not be ready (auth/master servers, tech support)
6) As mentioned, early reviews that give people an extra day or two to think about their upcoming purchase (rather than everyone rushing out and buying it without communicating their opinion first).

That's just a few reasons I can come up with off the top of my head. I'm not trying to justify anything, just thinking what I'd be thinking if I was a money-grubbing game-industry suit :P

last edited by parabol at 00:31:56 21/Oct/08

isn't it funny how a publisher seeks to punish [people / stores and when its going to effect their customer base in the end I don't think a delay is very smart..

I thinks they need to get their perspective right..

6) As mentioned, early reviews that give people an extra day or two to think about their upcoming purchase (rather than everyone rushing out and buying it without communicating their opinion first).

hah, yeah its really in the interests of the buyers. the actual reasons are the exact opposite. they want a mad rush on a game, they want 1 million sales on the first day, the noise of that is going to drown out the "well its not that great to be honest" reviews.

imo people put more weight behind what they read on a forum or blog these days than they do some s***ty mag like PC power play or even one of the online (like ausgamers) reviews. the fact that a bad game gets like 80 percent, it makes it pretty much impossible to decide if a game is for you. i don't know if its because the reviewers are worried about upsetting publishers or what, but rubbish games should be rubbished. s*** like zero punctuation.

take spore. average rating is ~85%. yet its utter s***. utter failure of a game. how many chumps went out and bought it based on the hype, yet if they had waited a couple of days they'd have read a post by old mate neffo on qgl called it for what it is, will wright's massively multiplayer online tea bagging extravaganza. they might as well have paid an EB employee $90 to dick punch them, at least the experience would have been memorable.

last edited by nF at 08:10:00 21/Oct/08

While i agree with your point nF, i don't think thats the entirety of it. It's just one part of quite a few reasons.

Could you imagine the massive sad all thouse people who bought it early would have if the auth servers weren't up before release date, and the rubbishing they would give it on forums etc? Especially if you needed to auth to even play the game. Which would only be KMarts fault, and no reflection of the actual game, and would attract much more attention to the games copy protection rather than the actual game it self, all thanks to, KMart.

Magazines and online sites are reliant on these game companies for revenue. Hence they are going to give favourable reviews ... or else

You even have to pick your forum for getting info.

Something like the SA games forum can be misleading for a few reasons. Sometimes there are so many people who like the game, if anyone posts a negative review they get branded a troll and shouted down. You also get the classic problem when the start of the game is really cool so everyone jumps on and posts how awesome it is, and then you find out the rest of the game is utter s***.

I find jumping on metacritic and reading the reviews that gave the lowest score to be useful. You can get a feel for the flaws of the game.

Or you could wait for the zero punctuation review.

they want a mad rush on a game, they want 1 million sales on the first day, the noise of that is going to drown out the "well its not that great to be honest" reviews.

Huh? Isn't that pretty much what I just said?

No, you're saying that strict release dates promote people to wait for reviews. I'm saying they don't. I'm saying if someone happened to get a copy a few days earlier, was massively disappointed and bagged the game online, sales would be hurt. If you have a strict release date the only reviews out there are the reviews by magazines, etc that have specifically been given an early copy by the publisher. All the other reviewers have to wait like every other chump. So, if a million copies are sold on day 1, the only reviews they could have read at that point would have been essentially selected by the publisher.

And there's always the possibility that the publisher just won't send any pre-release copies at all. Its pretty clear that publishers don't mind throwing their weight around and some struggling gaming magazine who (probably buys) an exclusive review is going to be extremely hesitant to review overly negatively.

Someone on a forum (or someone like yahtzee) doesn't have those commercial pressures, so you want to limit that as much as possible. Its all about marketing, its about sales and whats best for the customer doesn't factor in at all.

No, you're saying that strict release dates promote people to wait for reviews

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying they want strict release dates to avoid early reviews that give people time to think. So instead everyone will now purchase at the same time without first communicating their opinions to each other first. Which is what you're saying, maybe my wording was a bit ambiguous :)

last edited by parabol at 11:04:09 21/Oct/08

Haha, sorry. I actually thought you were trying to say that people buying early (before the official release) were missing out on reviews to their detriment and thats what the companies were actively trying to stop.

last edited by nF at 12:30:27 21/Oct/08

Went to EB at slutwyche and they were selling Fable 2. I'm guessing once kmart broke the date, microsoft decided to let it sell.

Nf I think ur looking to far into it,the plain simple fact is there is a set release date,and that date should be adhered by,regardless of what reviews have to do with it or any other game.
I really couldn't care less for reviews,ever.
It's about people being able to pick up the same game at the same time,plain and simple.
It is purely unfair to start selling a game at Kmart when other stores can't.

imo people put more weight behind what they read on a forum or blog these days than they do some s***ty mag like PC power play or even one of the online (like ausgamers) reviews. the fact that a bad game gets like 80 percent, it makes it pretty much impossible to decide if a game is for you. i don't know if its because the reviewers are worried about upsetting publishers or what, but rubbish games should be rubbished. s*** like zero punctuation.

I agree and its one thing that I pride AusGamers on - we have no commercial pressure to give good reviews on games and we are (I think) much more ruthless than many other places when it comes to reviewing games that suck. (Except GTA4 which is the only game that I've really played recently that we've reviewed that I thought we scored too high - but I only reached that opinion after playing it for like 20 hours)

That said, my experience is gamers have made up their minds whether or not they're going to buy a game long, long before it hits the shelves and do so regardless of reviews, no matter how bad the game gets panned. I think your comments about reading forum posts is probably more true - I'm much more likely to play a game if I see a bunch of people here talking about it favourably, because I know yall generally have similar tastes.

(Except GTA4 which is the only game that I've really played recently that we've reviewed that I thought we scored too high - but I only reached that opinion after playing it for like 20 hours)

in todays game market any game you play for 20hours is worth a decent score..

in todays game market any game you play for 20hours is worth a decent score..

After about 5-6 hours I was grinding; I pretty much only played it that long to determine if it did actually get any better after the initial shine wore off. It didn't :(

I agree with that point though in general - getting 20 hours out of a game these days is no mean feat. Unless its a multiplayer PC game of course in which case 20 hours is what, 10 decent length games? I would have knocked that off in a week back in the day!

I agree and its one thing that I pride AusGamers on - we have no commercial pressure to give good reviews on games and we are (I think) much more ruthless than many other places when it comes to reviewing games that suck. (Except GTA4 which is the only game that I've really played recently that we've reviewed that I thought we scored too high - but I only reached that opinion after playing it for like 20 hours)

absolutely, i had a quick browse through all your recent reviews and they seemed to be much more honest about if they are worth the time and money. obviously the fact that ausgamers extended into reviews from a completely different base makes it a bit different to gamespot or pc powerplay, etc. your reviews don't pay the bills. its impossible to be completely objective in a review, in fact its impossible to be objective at all. its purely subjective.

but if you don't like a game, then you don't like a game. you shouldn't have to check yourself with "if you like this sort of thing, you'll like this game". or it sold 2 million copies in a week, that means its good. not that game reviewers are journalists or anyone with any respect, but they have opinions of their own, or at least they should.

Too human had about 11hours of single player content :(

and 2 hours of multiplayer.

yeah but with multiboxing, thats like 10 hours (in 2 hours)