They actually did put out a Bastion Review. I understand your point though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft gave journalists a free Nexus 7 at a Watchdogs Preview event.
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
They actually did put out a Bastion Review. I understand your point though.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I don't agree they are there for the consumer. We live in an age where multiple impressions of a product are as easy to gather as a few clicks on the mouse, rather than buying multiple magazines to see them - something that costs money. Embargoes exists, yes, partly because reviewers then cannot one up each other, but mostly because of potential damage an early review that is negative can cause, otherwise the example in the OP of being allowed to break it if given a good score wouldn't happen. They exist as a means to maintain pre-orders and day one purchases, that as time moves on, are getting bigger and bigger. Front loading is the way big games make big money now.
I don't actually see how they benefit the consumer at all, quite the opposite in fact. A consumer that wants a game day one is not going to wait till later that very day to check out all the reviews, they go and buy it based on impressions and quick looks instead. A lack of embargoes means a consumer could get a review a week before launch, or two even, and that only serves to inform them prior to a purchase, and thereby empowering the customer with more information about a product, which is the entire point of a review in the first place.
Even the 'first' thing is getting redundant, because people wait for multiple reviews from a range of sites, or visit metacritic to have them all aggregated to an average. Those days are dead or dying.
No, I would need much convincing that they benefit the consumer at all. From my eyes they only benefit the publisher.
this is always the important thing
everyone has their biases, they just need to make them clear so that it's easier to find people whose opinions you can trust
I dunno what I could do that you couldn't. I'm just asking that everyone stop jumping to conclusions when every twitter post so far from a journalist has been them saying they didn't keep the damn thing.
(And no, I have no plans to write an article about this - "big publisher gives out swag at press event" is not a new or noteworthy story, sadly. But if you're interested in more about the shitty things that video game publishers do to influence review scores, you should check out my big piece on Metacritic.)
Honey Bunny
Member
They're not even pretending anymore are they. Wow.
Fixed that for you.
Unfortunately, besides it being a hard hitting topic requiring more than just an email to a PR team, it would require someone going against the "club". Its like asking a poltician to spearhead an inquiry against lobbyists and trying to abolish it. Not going to happen.
I doubt that is possible. They may be able to be more honest with themselves about the games they like, but the idea that it doesnt effect them probably isnt true. That said, Giant Bomb isnt a website that lives off reviews so it is less of a deal. They are known for their video content, who also does reviews, in general I think this gives them more leeway with gamers.
Watch_Dogs has second screen functionality. Ubisoft's justification was probably that they wanted to make sure everyone could use those features.
Problem is that basically everyone will wind up having a smartphone or tablet anyway, especially modern game journos.
Haven't we learned by now that it has gotten to a point where we have to take each review with a pinch of salt these days anyway. Back when it was all about magazine reviews as a source it was much easier to believe what the reviewer was saying. It was a hobby and a very smaller culture then. Passion and enthusiasm fueled people then. Now any man and his dog can review a game. Either creating a blogpost or filming themselves on youtube. We should be, in this culture of millions (almost billions) of gamers, taking reviews as hints and with a pinch of salt.
Yes. There probably are professionals who are not only paid to go to these events. Have their travel paid and have received a brand new tablet for free. A pretty sweet deal. You may think this will drive them towards some sort of favoritism towards Watchdogs now. Is that really any different from allowing someone who is a fan of a series review a game. Would you really want to read an Assassin's Creed review by Kevin Van Ord for example? It is very hard to trust reviews anyway, it is and always has been someone else's opinion of something. But when they review things, they still have to justify their scores in words and explain as to why they gave that game a 10/10.
I see Jason floating around here. Websites like Kotaku I find harder to trust. As well as Eurogamer. Websites that in the past have had to make a big deal of their commitment to ethics and morals surrounding these things. If it is something you have always done and will continue to do, you don't need to make a big deal out of it and make sure everyone knows it. It is harder to trust people who have to justify themselves about what should be the norm.
This sort of thing will continue. Sony not that long ago gave literally everyone interested a brand new engraved PS4. Is the PS4 in trouble? No. Do people even care now, not really. For as long as this carries on, just take everything with a pinch of salt. Video game journalism shouldn't be review focused anyway, it should be about writing intelligent pieces and stories about the culture. Things that are actually interesting and can never be questioned in terms of integrity.
Yes. There probably are professionals who are not only paid to go to these events. Have their travel paid and have received a brand new tablet for free. A pretty sweet deal. You may think this will drive them towards some sort of favoritism towards Watchdogs now. Is that really any different from allowing someone who is a fan of a series review a game. Would you really want to read an Assassin's Creed review by Kevin Van Ord for example? It is very hard to trust reviews anyway, it is and always has been someone else's opinion of something. But when they review things, they still have to justify their scores in words and explain as to why they gave that game a 10/10.
I see Jason floating around here. Websites like Kotaku I find harder to trust. As well as Eurogamer. Websites that in the past have had to make a big deal of their commitment to ethics and morals surrounding these things. If it is something you have always done and will continue to do, you don't need to make a big deal out of it and make sure everyone knows it. It is harder to trust people who have to justify themselves about what should be the norm.
This sort of thing will continue. Sony not that long ago gave literally everyone interested a brand new engraved PS4. Is the PS4 in trouble? No. Do people even care now, not really. For as long as this carries on, just take everything with a pinch of salt. Video game journalism shouldn't be review focused anyway, it should be about writing intelligent pieces and stories about the culture. Things that are actually interesting and can never be questioned in terms of integrity.
CambriaRising
Member
Being able to see a review when the game is available to purchase is absolutely better for the consumer. If people are looking at reviews to determine whether they want to buy a game (Their intended purpose) than having one up as soon as they can buy a game is totally valuable. How else will they know if the game is bad or not? Most people don't go to message boards to look for game coverage.
"If game reviewers rushed through it and they were known for that, those reviews would be considered less valuable."
How would anyone really know?
Lalalandia
Member
Perhaps I'm naive but I always believed 'swag' to be items like t-shirts, mugs, and 'collector' editions is the news of a publisher giving out a $200 piece of electronics really that unremarkable? And if it is shouldn't the larger sites be highlighting this?
Baleoce
Member
aah thanks, yeah it's the nexus 10 that was samsung.
SlowRevolution
Member
I don't really think that's fair. When there's so much shit flung at games journalists in general (not saying it is or isn't deserved) I get why guys like Jason, who do a good job, are defensive.
He's a games journalist. What you want there is a games journalist journalist.
Have you heard of the term "feature articles"?
A lot of mainstream media use feature articles as a guise to put a spotlight on what may otherwise not have been worthy of a write up, ie they are paid for. Many feature articles are presented as providing general information either to the public or that publications viewers. However it is not uncommon for companies, products or services to seen in these Feature Articles. In this case substitute features with press previews.
Just as an example, Boogie2988 (the Francis guy) received a PS4, camera, and every launch game in addition to being flown out to a Sony PS4 event back in November.
That said, even with his biases I think he's a cool guy.
BibiMaghoo
Member
That unfairly labels them all the same though, and we know that is not the case.
You mean a journalist? Yeah.
RobFox64tm
Member
This news actually made me feel sick.
Yeah, but piles of money.
Your problem is you seem to believe the gaming rags are there to serve you as a customer. When you realize for 95% of them you're actually the product they're selling to those same publisher, you tend to realize why they do what they do, and why the industry is set up the way it is.
Leway is given to allow the facade of Integrity and Independence; but in the end most of them are in the business of making money, and ad revenue from game publishers, not readers wallets, pays the shareholders.
Ad revenue and early access are paramount for their business models, so they won't put secondary issues above that need.
I believe the tablets were used to show the companion app crossplay but I can't actually talk about that without breaking embargo...
Are £200 tablets really given out that often that it's not newsworthy anymore? Plus being a games journalist over the years, I'm sure you have access to more contacts who can shed a better light on this story than the average person on here.
RedNumberFive
Banned
We already saw a bit of this with the Sessler/Gies fiasco.
Back before we had live streaming and lets play's I would agree that they are needed to be able to make an informed purchase, however... Between the amount of gameplay footage you get now through previews and being able to see early adopters play the game day one, it becomes less of an issue. IMO, if reviews dont come with footage of the reviewer playing the game, it just isnt as helpful as it could or, imo, should be. Now if, perhaps, reviews from all these publications also put out video's of them playing the game I would be less inclined to want to see reviews, as they are, die but until then I dont find them particularly helpful to the consumer as a whole.
Bold - You can always tell, eventually, what reviewers actually played the game properly and who didnt, your reputation is why people want to read you, you become known as unreliable people are not going to care what you say. Watching gameplay, imo, is now a must with reviews, specifically early reviews.
Lalalandia
Member
Yup he was quite up front about it though and as a YT personality he's not presenting himself to the world as a source of news and information just entertainment and opinion. I find the silence from those who self-identify as journalists as far more disturbing and can only applaud those who have come forward talking about this.
Portugeezer
Member
No longer surprising.
No longer care.
All I need is GAF.
No longer care.
All I need is GAF.
What is this fiasco you speak of?
Hahaha cheers now I've got "Who reports the reporters?" stuck in my head. It's like the idea someone had during the Doritos debacle about a meta-metacritic where we review the reviews.
Not worth the backlash.
I'm not sure what your overall point is? Are you trying to argue this stuff doesn't effect people?
infinityBCRT
Member
A) people who primarily write previews and reviews are game critics, not journalists
B) critics need a tablet to critique the second screen stuff. while most people have access to a tablet, there's probably enough people who wouldn't have enough access to one, or at least wouldn't have access to an ideal tablet (nexus or ipad) that they felt the need to give these out
B) critics need a tablet to critique the second screen stuff. while most people have access to a tablet, there's probably enough people who wouldn't have enough access to one, or at least wouldn't have access to an ideal tablet (nexus or ipad) that they felt the need to give these out
Certainly not, but the problem is widespread enough that it can be considered an industry-wide or profession-wide problem. That doesn't mean that every gaming reviewer/journalist is a Dorito eating, Mountain Dew drinking, Nexus 7 using soulless hack, but the larger trends being set by more prominent figures and major publishers are sort of blatant.
I'll read and try to support people whom I perceive to not be a part of the problem. Like I said, just have to laugh at it. It's as though publishers view gaming journalists as children who can be bought with simple gifts, and many of them respond in ways that validate those publisher views. It's not an issue exclusive to gaming, but it's an issue all the same.
RedNumberFive
Banned
They whined on Twitter for being marginalized when they were handing out PS4 debug units.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
What a crummy bribe.
Lalalandia
Member
I've no doubt they were but why were journalists given them to take home? If it was essential to provide the 'best experience' then why not just provide a pre-paid fedex slip to return it after the 'at home' phase of the review was done?
Nope if the device was given as a gift for the attendees to keep whatever the stated purpose it's true purpose was for improper influence.
While I agree it's a shady practice to offer journalists gifts, the thing I understand even less is doing this sort of thing in 2014. It is blatantly obvious that this sort of thing would subsequently be talked about online and social media, only hurting Ubisoft. So I don't get it on that level...20 years ago, sure.
I may know what he's referring to, and I didn't pay too much attention (because I pretty much stopped paying attention to Sess related things sometime early last year). But I think there was some sort of tantrum that Sess put up because he wasn't receiving a free ps4 (again I may be remembering wrong so forgive me if I am I will edit it out if it turns out it is).
No idea about Gies, that guy I never paid attention to.
And you knew about it, from him telling you, before he even started talking about his opinion. Even he says that's enough for some people to totally discredit his opinion, and he's right.
Disclosure is the biggest issue, bias being secondary. At least with disclosure you know opinions can be more favoritable then they should be and account for it in your own opinion.
And with boogie he also made it very clear that if he had something bad to say, it would be said regardless of if it meant no more promotions. That's integrity and he seems to have stuck to it, even if it still cause bias.
That's working withing this crappy system with morals and intergity and transparency. There's still issues, but at least its all laid out on the table for each person to make up their own opinion, which is the fair thing to do. It also doesn't make what publishers are doing right. But its at least more respectful to readers and fans, and acknowledges they're not just sheeple.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
All these situations coming to light just make me glad I only visit GB, and not for reviews or previews.
Hey just as long as it looks pretty
And we all know Watch_Dogs is going to be another Ubi infested, checklist and collectathon.
This is the real issue here. They couldn't pony up for iPads?