To me "review bomb" implies giving a rating based on external or irrelevant factors. Giving a game a bad review because it doesn't run correctly on your computer is perfectly valid and helpful to other users.
Yeah, the billion dollar game developer doesn't have the resources to test preview editions of the only PC OS their game is designed for. They're just a small startup of ~20k employees. How are they supposed to allocated anyone to patching a game from their most popular franchise?
You're right, it's the consumers fault for being biased.
Star Wars Outlaws in particular received a temporary fix for crashing issues back in November. While Microsoft and Ubisoft have been working on a fix, issues with games like Assassin's Creed Origins still remain.
If a fix exists for other games and not this one and you've been negatively affected, that's a 100% acceptable reason to give a "Not Recommend" review.
It ain't review bombing if the game's not working properly. That's just called an accurate review. Of course the gaming journalism industry has to make sure all of its headlines are anti-consumers possible though.
The problem is that you have some weird conception of what "review bombing" means. You seem to be under the misconception that it has something to do with somehow illegitimate reviews.
All that it means is massive amounts of negative reviews in a short time. It's pretty self-explanatory, really.
That's the sterilized, literal definition, but it's very common for "review bombing" to be framed as immature gamers throwing a temper tantrum. It's denotation vs. connotation.
I don't understand. These reviews seem accurate to people who have yet to buy the game, so the score properly reflecting the current state of the game warning potential buyers to not buy it.
Reviews would be useless if they didn't change and people buying the game because reviews reflecting game is fine.
This is the exact reason why Steam had a separate "recent reviews" statistic. A well-reviewed game with negative recent reviews is a good indicator that something broke (three exact reason should be spelled out in the reviews).
The only issue is that such reviews are not "self-cleaning" once the issue gets fixed, and not every negative reviewer will remove or correct their review manually.
It would be true if gamers wouldn't be OBSESSED with bashing Ubisoft for any fucking reason they can find.
A Ubisoft guy says something about people not owning their games, it gets taken out of context and people are basically sending death threat to their office. Steam publish an update to make it clear you never owned your games, people jerk them harder.
In the end, both are filthy capitalist business, but one has 12k employees and get shit on all the time because black samurai in a fantasy world or women not fuckable enough, the other has around 80 employees, take 30% on every games they did nothing for, and every gamers kisses their asses.
This is just another reason for low life gamers to hate on ubisoft, the fact that windows broke compatibility with the game makes it even more stupid. How the fuck could they have prevent this from happening exactly? They will publish a patch within 24 hours but the bad reviews will stick.