Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League has been at the center of some controversy this week, not just for it going live yesterday (for people who pre-ordered) only to be immediately pulled due to a bug. Drama surrounding previews and review code for the Rocksteady game have ignited a debate between some games journalism outlets, players, and games industry professionals, putting the spotlight on broader, growing divisions between them.
Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League is a game set in the same DC universe as Rocksteady’s much-loved Arkham series, only it’s a live-service loot-shooter, with an always-online requirement, even for solo play. Polygon described some of its early gameplay footage as “like Destiny dropped into Batman: Arkham,” and IGN wrote in a preview (that we’ll come back to in a moment) that it features “game mechanics straight out of the likes of Destiny, Anthem, or Marvel’s Avengers,” alongside other increasingly-derided stuff like cosmetics, seasons, and battle passes. Previews of the game earlier in January, including IGN’s, were pretty negative, with outlets finding the missions repetitive and the combat clunky. The game has had several delays, and yesterday’s swift release and reversal doesn’t seem to bode too well for it either.
Over the weekend, IGN said that it was one of many outlets who wouldn’t be getting early copies of the game for review. The absence of early code isn’t all that unusual when it comes to always-online games with co-op elements; I remember several instances of it happening at Kotaku that meant we couldn’t write about a game ahead of time. But IGN also noted that “Warner Bros. Games informed IGN that it has declined to send us codes at all.” This kind of advance notice for withholding code is a little weirder, especially for a big outlet, but as IGN points out, “it’s well within WB’s rights, as sending out review codes is neither an obligation nor something we take for granted.”
This kind of thing sometimes happens. In fact, it happened to IGN with Balan Wonderworld in 2021, and to multiple outlets with Forspoken in 2023. Eurogamer and other UK outlets had trouble getting access to Starfield code. (Eurogamer wrote this morning that it will be getting Suicide Squad code on the game's February launch day, saying that "the publisher has decided to send out code after the game has gone live, rather than in advance - something that happens from time to time, albeit rarely a full 24 hours after it's been playable in some parts of the world.") Late or no code can be a sign that there’s something up with a game; CD Projekt Red holding back console codes for Cyberpunk 2077 comes to mind. Or it can be the result of any number of issues or situations behind the scenes of a developer, publisher, or PR firm, including a studio's desire to minimize negative press reviews. Not getting press code is fairly uncommon, especially for major outlets, but it’s not totally unheard of.
As minor as it sounds, this bit of games journalism inside baseball has kicked up a universe of discourse that's about more than just games, much of it focused on IGN. A certain segment of gamers have been gloating that IGN is being punished for its negative preview, seeing it as some kind of comeuppance for ”negative engagement farming,” “clickbait articles,” “unprofessionalism” and more. IGN’s Director of Video Content Strategy Destin Legaire, who wrote IGN’s preview, also seems to think the lack of code is punitive, tweeting that “not sending IGN Review codes after my negative preview is ridiculous… not a good look, @WBgames.” This morning, Forbes' Paul Tassi wrote that "I’ve heard that the press previews heavily played into this decision" to not give out early code. Whatever the reason (in my experience, PR can sometimes be vague about why you aren't getting code), gamers who were already mad at IGN for gamer reasons have rejoiced in it, thrilled IGN has gotten what they see as its just desserts.
Things escalated after a tweet yesterday from IGN claiming the game was 37% off in the UK. Such an early sale would indicate the game is in trouble, but the article itself notes that this is a single eBay seller’s discount, not some broader pricing strategy. The IGN article in question seems to be a UK-based deals post (something many outlets do), but was tweeted from IGN’s main international account, making it appear to be a news article, which only led to more allegations IGN has something against Suicide Squad. (The article’s author tweeted that “IGN isn't a hive mind and I don't give a shit about review codes.”)
I was surprised to see several games industry workers jump into this one: “Man, IGN really hates our game,” tweeted former Rocksteady artist Jeryce Dianingana. “This is an incredibly misleading headline,” tweeted voice actor Yong Yea. “We need to have a conversation about how gaming journalism has gone downhill the last few years,” tweeted an Influencer Marketing Manager for Roblox.
Though the situation is hugely different, I felt echoes of what we saw during December’s Insomniac hack, when readers, game developers, and journalists clashed over games journalism’s perceived behavior and motivations. Some people saw journalists reporting on the hack as profiting off the pain of developers, and there’s echoes of a similar sentiment here in the idea that IGN is making a point of hating on Suicide Squad, reveling in dunking on a bad game for clicks. Maybe this moment, with emotions following the Insomniac hack still running high, has been coming for years, alongside a perceived turf war between streamers, influencers, and journalists that's led to an increase in resentment between all parties, as well as of journalism itself.
It’s good to be uneasy about relationships in games journalism, a field that has long relied on access and which has blurred the lines between marketing and editorial independence. It's good to think critically about what motivates game companies to give out code. And it’s even good to be uneasy about what journalists are doing when we poke our heads into your lives; journalists feel a lot of complicated ways about this too! I think it’s good that we’re seeing the erosion of some of the narrative that journalists, PR, and developers are all in the same industry–games journalists are in the journalism industry, not the games industry, and I think we need that separation to ensure journalists stay clear-eyed and independent about the topics and people we cover. We’re not marketers for games or cheerleaders for certain consoles, but we’re not the enemies of the industry or those who work in it either.
As a reader, it’s fair to be bummed that an outlet says a thing you hope you’ll like is bad. If you don’t work in games journalism, it’s fair to roll your eyes at an outlet making a whole deal out of behind-the-scenes workaday stuff. (Journalists can sometimes be self-important; I would know!) As a games industry worker, someone who can face consequences–good and bad–from an outlet’s reporting or impressions of a game, it’s fair to be cautious or sceptical about us. As a games journalist, it’s a good instinct to take any opportunity to provide transparency on how journalism works. Journalistic practices can be inscrutable and secretive, which contributes to all of this distrust and animosity.
Ultimately, I don’t think there’s some big, serious conspiracy here. Sometimes outlets don’t get codes! But the questions of trust and motivation at its heart are real issues worth exploring, ones that echo tensions across journalism and the industries it covers.
