So, TheSixthAxis posted their review of NBA 2K18. While they did speak positively about the game, the reviewer awarded a score of 3/10, due to the aggressive implementation of microtransactions, and its whole effect on the experience. It's a harsh grade, but I can understand the reasoning behind it.
However, 2K reached out to them to discuss the low score, which led to them temporarily removing it:
Update 4PM BST 21/09: In discussion with 2K Games, we’ve temporarily removed the score pending a statement with regard to our criticisms, at which point it will be reinstated. Additionally, a draft conclusion was posted that incorrectly characterised our score as a protest vote, and has been reworded to reflect that our criticisms are rooted in the effect that VC and microtransactions have on the gameplay.
The story was picked up and presented as 2K pressuring them to change the score, though TSA have insisted that this isn't the case. They ultimately restored the 3/10 score.
Update 2 1PM BST 22/09: Our 3/10 score has now been restored to this review, with all but the wording that suggested this was a protest vote also kept intact.
They also published a full statement here. The crux of it is as follows:
So in retrospect, did I make a mistake in altering our published review? Possibly. Were there good reasons to change the review? Definitely. Most importantly, was this from undue publisher pressure? No.
The conclusion that was originally posted read, “If you’re a series fan you may enjoy what you see, and the score below doesn’t indicate the quality of the core basketball game, but rather protests how utterly invasive the microtransactions have now become.” To categorise our review and its score as a protest vote against 2K was wrong on a number of levels, and it was something I believed I had removed when editing. Evidently I didn’t or didn’t realise that my edits had not been submitted properly while travelling. Either way, it was largely for this reason that 2K’s PR team got in touch after the review was published.
Yes, they asked us to reconsider the score or shift to a “review in progress”, but I can’t state strongly enough that there was no “pressure” or threat of blacklisting made or even implied. If this were the case, the demand would have been for the review to be removed entirely, which we would not have done.* However, the word “protest” was still misplaced and needed to be removed, and it was while doing this that the olive branch of a statement surrounding planned changes and adjustments to NBA 2K18 was made. So I made the call to change the score to pending at the same time, get on my flight and hope for something remarkable when I landed.
Honestly, that still feels a bit shady on 2K's part, and a bit wishy-washy on the part of the editor, too. I have to agree with a couple of people responding in the comments on their statement and the review itself. They still caved to a demand 2K had no right to make, and although the editor ultimately stood by the reviewer, who rightfully called out the VC gouging and scored the game in the way they saw fit because of the way it impacted the experience, the fact the score was pulled at all doesn't feel right.
Incidents like this suggest that 2K would rather silence criticism and preserve their Metacritic score than listen to feedback and take care of consumers who have been extremely loyal. Maybe TSA were put in a tough spot; maybe not. It sounds like implied pressure at worst, an inappropriate request at best. Maybe they're choosing to be diplomatic and downplay 2K's request to reconsider the score, but the fact the request was made and the score removed/changed to pending does feel a bit shady.
2K have pushed things too far with VC implementation this year, and personally, I think they're getting too much of a pass from a lot of reviewers. Incidents like this make them look even worse, and although they've cut the price of haircuts at the barber, the underlying problems with VC gouging and extreme grinding are still very much an issue. I'm sure a 3/10 score stings when they're getting 9s from most publications, but it's troubling that instead of taking a moment to think "Hey, maybe not everyone's happy about what we're doing with VC", their reaction is to instead try to get a publication to reconsider a score, based on a word taken out of context.
) but i share totally his thoughts about VC system :
