-
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
But you have to pound carbs. It's a nightmare.
Objectivity doesn't exist, even in science experimentation.
Subjective views - whether conscious or unconscious - can only ever be recognised and minimised, objectivity isn't something humans can do.
He was the former Senior Editor at Official Xbox Magazine.
You know what you're getting with Ryan, he's an unabashed Microsoft fanboy. At least he's not disingenuous about it.
At least when someone lays all their biases out on the table, you can choose to safely ignore them.
I'll give your post an 8 out of 10.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
If you're a journalist and you didn't take it, you're obviously not the source of my ire. If everyone who claims to be a professional turned it down, there's obviously no issue. Since neither you, I, nor Ubi PR are grotesquely stupid, we all know that didn't happen, let's continue the discussion, shall we?
RedNumberFive
Banned
The Giant Bomb Diet.
chickdigger802
Banned
what journalists want to actually keep a tablet given for free to promo a game about hacking and the MAN is watching you anyways?
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
I actually disagree. There will always be nefarious influences out there. It is for the person to resist and ensure they're not compromised.
That doesn't excuse what the PR companies have done.
Just because an ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we should stop striving to be closer said ideal.
It is impossible to strive for objectivity without sounding like a robot. =P
sixteen-bit
Member
gotta butter 'em up
Do we? I try not to make a habit out of jumping to conclusions. Do we have any idea which reporters took and kept the tablet?
Taking all of what I said and trying to jump to the obvious extreme of "objectivity doesn't exist" is puzzling. Yes it is impossible to be completely objective, which makes it even a bigger deal to not lose the objectivity you have, specifically when you are a products reviewer/previewer.
Hence my words 'recognised and minimised'.
Haunted
Member
If we're talking marketing costs, dropping $20k for an improved Metacritic score and its associated positive impact on day 1 purchasers and casuals (who think they can trust reviews) is extremely cheap.
I mean, it's bribery, but you know.
Maybe it'll have as much artifacting as your avatar.
Again, shouldnt that be something a JOURNALIST should be asking and investigating?
No kidding. Someone apparently doesn't know about content networks or YouTube traffic.
YouTube used to be a large group of independent voices. It was captured and hasn't been that way in a while. Because theres a lot of money to be made in microcasting within affiliate programs.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Bahaha, their excuse was it was a "press kit" Stop Ubi, just stop. I've gotten plenty of press kits, there is NOTHING you can do to pretend that is what this is for. Press Kits for the majority are delivered through email, and rarely, presented physically on a USB drive, not a bleeping Nexus 7.
SeventhSon
Member
The appearance of impropriety is impropriety.
Handing out mobile phones is bribery 101. Guess this may also confirm what an unpolished shit-fest Watchdogs will be.
Also: Steve Hogart's face in his profile photo looks like he's desperate for a girl. Poor man
He's gay.
The Cartographer
Member
I wonder what they did for the first Assassin's Creed back in 2007.
No of course not but even the mere suggestion of something either positive or negative can effect someones outlook. Whether that is just an offer regardless if it is accepted can potentially skew a person opinion on the matter. Have a read how just a lunch break can have an effect on the verdict of a trial.
PR and Marketing comapines know this and all they got to do is make an offer and it's a sales tactic as old as the sun. If you want a unbiased and unaffected review system they would need to be conducted in a vacuum and that is just impossible to do in any logistical way.
Wow... I'm not even surprised anymore. I don't want to jump to conclusions but is concerning in how the final game would be in reality if they are already starting to give free stuff to journalists... (Just remember the Xbone/Machinima scandal and all the praise for it's games even if they are average/bad)
BibiMaghoo
Member
That embargo stuff is disgusting.
Embargoes should be banned outright. If a publisher says a product is embargoed until launch, then the product should not even be reviewed at all. Publishers need to realise they are beholden to the journalist and reviewer, not give them free shit to make it the other way around. Every reviewer has the power to break a companies million dollar marketing budget, simply by giving the game no coverage at all. No banners, no reviews, nothing, as if it is not worth the time to even review. You have an embargo? No review for you mofo's.
See how they like them apples. Not well would be my guess.
Embargoes should be banned outright. If a publisher says a product is embargoed until launch, then the product should not even be reviewed at all. Publishers need to realise they are beholden to the journalist and reviewer, not give them free shit to make it the other way around. Every reviewer has the power to break a companies million dollar marketing budget, simply by giving the game no coverage at all. No banners, no reviews, nothing, as if it is not worth the time to even review. You have an embargo? No review for you mofo's.
See how they like them apples. Not well would be my guess.
Lalalandia
Member
That we don't know this is in many ways what worries me, imagine if a political party handed out free tablet devices to all the attending journalists? I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the room would react very negatively and that would become the story of the event rather than whatever the event was about in the first place.
I've always preferred outlets that pay for their own travel and accommodation expenses but the decline in advertising revenue has ensured that fewer and fewer places can afford that. I also share your scepticism of the YouTube reviewer culture, to my mind this places naive fans in the hands of well trained PR folk who know how to leverage their 'friendship' into uncritical coverage. After all put some WD branding on that Nexus 7 and it's easy to see how someone who has not been trained to identify that as an attempt at improper influence would think 'wow cool merch in this press kit' rather than 'here's $200, think nice of us'.
This view is equally misguided. Truth in absolute terms might be impossible, but recognizing gradations of objectivity, especially in scientific experimentation and mathematics, is both important and reasonably achieved. And sometimes the contrast is so sharp and precise the term "objective" is totally applicable.
Maybe, as a journalist, you should go find out.
So then what was your overall purpose to your point? This stuff effects people, gifts effect people, all forms of marketing/advertisement is built to effect people and most of the time we don't even notice it's effect on us. People pretending otherwise are only encouraging consumer unfriendly practices.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
If you see someone denounce they took it then they didn't, but if someone is silent that means they did. Then again, we don't even know who all went there so thats hard to tell also.
normalmode
Member
FWIW, theradbrad is attending the US Watch Dogs press event this week.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Hahahaha
Those people are even more easily bought off because they aren't even journalist. Remember that whole shit storm with Microsoft and Machinima? That happens all the fucking time.
If you're trusting the "little guys" because they aren't directly part of the corporate machine you're in for a rude awakening. The little guys do anything to get a piece of the big pie.
CambriaRising
Member
Embargos are there for the consumer ultimately. If they weren't in place, you wouldn't get a review to read on day one, or day 0 or whatever. If they still got the game early and there was no review embargo, you can bet that reviewers would just rush through the game as soon as they get it in order to put a review up for the hits it would bring by being "first".
Worse yet, they might not even play the game and still write a review.
In the end, embargos are a necessary evil for reviews. I can't speak to previews. I think preview coverage is largely worthless because of the stupid caveats it brings.
Probably not as long they were cool about it.
While I agree that being given a trinket in a press package might not actually equate to a positive increase in your review score or overall coverage, that's not necessarily the issue at hand, as you can probably see from the tone in this thread. The problem is the appearance of impropriety eroding the major currency journalists bank on, the trust of their readers. The question isn't whether there actually is a correlation between swag and coverage, because the reality is no reader will be able to accurately weigh the subtle, unconscious factors which might come into play within journalists' heads and whether their professional integrity is greater than the sum of those factors. This is why disclosure is important, as is having clear and coherent rules regarding the treatment of anything provided to you from the people or organizations you cover; this informs the public of possible conflicts of interest they should be aware of when evaluating coverage.
ThatOneMexican
Member
That's why in my opinion they should get rid of gaming journalism. Because when it comes to, they should be "bribing" the consumer not journalists. The consumers are the ones that spend our hard earned money for their games not those freeloading journalists who expect free games and consoles.
I want to be a journalist now... However I would go for the free stuff, record the event and hand the reviewing to someone who didn't go and get free stuff. Or automatically deduct from the review per event/gift/bribe given. Or actually be a non-biased journalist, take the stuff, report the "gift" was given and be honest.
The simple solution would be to embargo reviews, but to end embargoes a reasonable time before a game is released. That's the difference. Like when movies don't do screenings -- it's often a red flag.
Why would publishers ever give up their current stranglehold, though? They're probably pretty happy with the current situation where reviewers are completely at their mercy.
That would be GOOD for consumers not bad. This would scare away more pre-orders and perhaps make the average game consumer more responsible with their purchase. If game reviewers rushed through it and they were known for that, those reviews would be considered less valuable. There is very little upside to gamers being day one buyers, and anything that helps reduce the amount of people doing so would be a good thing, imo.
SlowRevolution
Member
you keep saying this and I agree it would be nice to know, but the thing is most of the people here aren't really in a position to figure that out. that's where guys like you can (maybe? you've got more connections to other journalists than us, at least) help out.
CambriaRising
Member
Well I think that happens for some games, but if it doesn't it is not necessarily an ill-omen. The problem I have found is that sometimes a game can come 2-4 days before release, so an early embargo would be bringing that down to the wire. There is no real standard in place for reviews/review copies. It is really inconsistent.
Baleoce
Member
I mean, journalists get free shit fairly often, and it's a practice I've never really liked, but in this case, wtf. How is this even a related product? I've seen consoles given out by the console manufacturers just so they can hear a cheer in the crowd and generate artificial hype. But this is just a separate product. How are they justifying that, or do they not even have to?
What does a Google Nexus 7, manufactured by Asus, marketed by Google based on Android/Google software, have to do with Ubisoft? And why are they giving them out? Is it being palmed off as a marketing campaign or something because Watch_Dogs has a theme of technology?
What does a Google Nexus 7, manufactured by Asus, marketed by Google based on Android/Google software, have to do with Ubisoft? And why are they giving them out? Is it being palmed off as a marketing campaign or something because Watch_Dogs has a theme of technology?