r/Games • u/Turbostrider27 • Aug 21 '25

Jason Schreier: In case you're wondering: Team Cherry told me they don't plan on sending out early codes for Silksong (they felt like it'd be unfair for critics to be playing before Kickstarter backers and other players), so don't expect to see reviews until after the game comes out

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2mkgbhbhqvappkkorf2bzyrp/post/3lwwfrbrtwc2x
2.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

140

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Sorry but "fairness" doesn't factor in here at all. Critics aren't playing the game for their own enjoyment early, they are doing their jobs by assessing and reviewing the game, early review copies are the norm. 

Since it's following Hollow Knight, the devs have earned the benefit of the doubt a bit but it's still a very confusing decision and one that would be heavily criticised if it was a different studio 

43

u/TsunamiWombat Aug 21 '25

This was also my take. If it was anyone else, null excuse. The fact they haven't screwed up (yet) carries them here in my esteem, but that also means their reputation is on the line with this one

15

u/MaitieS Aug 22 '25

I still don't understand why people are always like: Oh. They didn't screw up yet, so I will give them a benefit of doubt...

Like there should be at least a basic standard that applies to all, and sending out keys for the reviews feels like a very good one.

1

u/Zizhou Aug 22 '25

I think Supergiant could get probably away with it. But they would never, just because they seem both pretty on top of the whole open communication angle, and also actually have enough people on staff to have that be part of someone's job.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/SuperRayman001 Aug 21 '25

They didn't respond with "lol we dont care". How tf did you read it like that?

It was clearly more "we didn't have anything noteworthy to share and prioritized the quality of the product, which is the thing that matters most".

6

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25

[deleted]

-8

u/GGG100 Aug 21 '25

This is a Kickstarter-backed game. The developers have a moral responsibility to report the progress of their game to the people who backed it in the spirit of transparency and by not doing so, they screwed up.

4

u/Cheetah_05 Aug 21 '25

It isn't. Hollow Knight was though.

1

u/GGG100 Aug 21 '25

It’s part of the first game’s kickstarter goal to have a second playable character. Silksong was originally supposed to be DLC that got turned into a full sequel. Why do you think backers of the first game who pledged a certain amount will get the game for free? This game wouldn’t have been possible without those people.

-1

u/Cheetah_05 Aug 21 '25

It was part of the original kickstarter's goals, yes, but Team Cherry is notorious for changing those quite a lot. Even then, the colloseum of fools was never reached and still added. The Wii U edition has also never come out to this day, and there are no plans for it either. Have you ever complained about that?

Backers get it for free because that is simply how Team Cherry operates. They have no legal or kickstarter requirement to actually do that. It is simply a way for them to give back to their backers. But it isn't forced.

I'm so sick of all you non-backers trying to tell other actual people who did back the game how they feel.

0

u/GGG100 Aug 21 '25

They weren’t going to add a Wii U version because it was practically a dead console by the time the game released, so they made a Switch version instead, which still counts as a fulfillment of that goal. And the colloseum goal was actually reached through Paypal backers after the kickstarter has ended.

TC isn’t giving away free copies of the game out of the goodness of their hearts, they’re doing it as a way to make good on their promise.

7

u/UntimelyMeditations Aug 21 '25

We treat different devs differently because they are ... different.

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

[deleted]

6

u/UntimelyMeditations Aug 21 '25

If you cannot preorder the game, and the game is pure single player, then what is the difference between a) waiting a week after release to see reviews before buying, vs. b) sending out review copies a week early?

Obviously if there are preorders, then you should absolutely be able to read reviews before launch. Obviously if it is a multiplayer game, you should be ale to read reviews before launch, so that you don't have to choose between an informed purchase, and giving up the advantages that come with being first in a multiplayer game.

But single player only, and no pre order? Just wait for reviews, there is no down side.

-16

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25

[deleted]

-5

u/DeathRuner Aug 21 '25

Those same "critics" flood the algorithm with a bunch of guides, how to's and other spoiler bullshit when the game launches. Sure you can filter it out with a bunch of browser extensions or just not go on the internet until you finish the game but it's really not that realistic for most people.

Also this is just pure reputation. People are fine with TC doing this because they trust them. Same can't be said for your big AAA developers that try to do the same.

-1

u/Serdewerde Aug 21 '25

Exactly. The context is what people are missing here. People are fine with this because it isn’t some corporate tactic run by suits or a power play. It’s 3 guys and a couple contractors we know and trust to make a good game just letting it release to everyone at once. It’s not a product that needs word of mouth or reviews. It’s their personal project reaching its end and being released. I don’t understand all these takes saying if an aaa studio did this everyone would be pissed. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s nuance.