Embargoes on game reviews aren’t necessarily bad for consumers. But they can be used in rotten ways.

Ubisoft released Assassin’s Creed Unity, the latest in its ever-expanding historical action game series, on Tuesday. As is typical with major releases, early copies of the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC game were provided to certain press outlets with the agreement that reviews would not be published until a specific date and time. This, for the uninitiated, is called an embargo.

What was atypical in the case of Unity was the embargo expired at noon Tuesday. Given the popularity of midnight launches and all-hours digital distribution options like Steam, that means Ubisoft deliberately held back reviews until 12 hours after people were buying it. You might imagine this meant Ubisoft anticipated poor reviews. This seems to have been the case, given the reviews thus far.

Conversely, if Ubisoft expected heaps of praise, it might have set the embargo early so as to shout the game’s praises from the rooftop ahead of its launch. This seems to have been the case with Electronic Arts’ Dragon Age: Inquisition—glowing reviews hit this week, but the game doesn’t launch until Tuesday.

Both scenarios are in the best interest of the publisher, but only one is truly problematic: giving early access to the press in exchange for an agreement to withhold information not just prior to the official release of a product, but for some time afterward as well. Note that I am not opposed to embargoes per se. In fact, I’m of the opinion they are a win-win-win for everyone, as long as they’re not used in a manipulative way.