Free PS4s and phones. Flown out to conventions and parties. Paid to play games all day and give an opinion about them.
I chose the wrong career path.
Any field where being impartial as possible with products is a must; accepting "gifts" from people that are trying to sell you something is almost always a big nono, it is imperative that you remain as impartial as possible in relation to that companies advertisements and the game.
Companies that keep/still send out gifts are not doing it to be nice, they do it because they see a rate of return that makes it worth it. Also, comparing a media industry that lives off reviews and previews to any other non product review/preview/endorsement industry is being pretty ignorant of why it is different(advertisement and marketing work on everyone to some degree). As for the Thief argument that "well it got a 6/10", that argument would only work if 6/10 was the lowest it could have gone. Maybe the reviews would have been even more harsh and/or the scores even lower if there wasnt a perception of partnership/friendship or some other non product related reason for given them a, higher then you would otherwise, score(and/or you might have written more harsher things). Gifts, travel events, press kits, and ect are forms of nonrational influence marketing advertisement and it has been proven, through studies, to have real influence on individuals.
Nobody is immune to these sort of things(gifts and advertisement in general), you are not immune to it, everyone just reacts different to different forms of advertisement, but it still effects you. And the fact that game companies still do press events(like being sent to nice area's and ect), press kits, gifts, oh and also hiring from said media field, along with other random things, infers them spending money on these sort of things still has a rate of return worth investing in. So everyone who actually chimes in and says "oh it doesn't matter" or "it doesn't effect me" are part of the problem and are either lying or ignorant to all the psychological reasoning behind these corporations "gifts".
As for the government being a totally different situations... In terms of positions sure, but the reasoning behind why you cant still is the same. Objectivity is, in part, lost. People who argue otherwise are probably the same people who think advertisement doesn't effect them.
He was the former Senior Editor at Official Xbox Magazine.Ryan MaCaffrey is a joke anyway. The quicker he is gone from IGN, the better.
7 out of 10 reviews across the board guaranteed.
This whole thread seems to be assuming that everyone there took the tablets? I'd like to see someone figure out who actually did, and if they were professional reporters as opposed to hobbyists or youtubers, before GAF pulls out the pitchforks.
But you have to pound carbs. It's a nightmare.
Lets be honest here, anyone getting angry at journalists and critics should really focus their ire at the PR companies and publishers. It's not like there's been brown paper envelopes exchanging hands in a darkened car park.
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.
Just because an ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we should stop striving to be closer said ideal.
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?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?
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.
Just because an ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we should stop striving to be closer said ideal.
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.So they gave $200 worth of tech to journalists.
Let's say 100 got a nexus that's $20,000 spent on journalists. Just mull that over, fucking shameful.
I have a feeling this game is going to be an utter shit fest. Both graphics and actual gameplay wise. Its a shame too because XB1 and PS4 owners are lacking an open world game right now.
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?
If you think YouTube is a good place to get impressions that haven't been influenced by publishers and swag, well, I've got some bad news for you...
It's not unethical.
It's unethical if they're handed out conditionally on a good review, or if the journo allows it to affect their judgement of the product concerned.
I used to get freebie shit all the time from media owners when I worked as a media planner/buyer - I had trips to grand prix, Ibiza, gadgets, lunches etc - and I'd still not place ads with them if it wasn't appropriate.
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
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.
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?
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.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.
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?
Hence my words 'recognised and minimised'.
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?
If you think YouTube is a good place to get impressions that haven't been influenced by publishers and swag, well, I've got some bad news for you...
Youtube impressions & forums have been a better place for review information for years now. I think the big guys are still around purely for forum dwellers to argue about, no one really cares what a professional critic thinks. Or rather, very few people need them anymore like they were needed in the EGM days. They just stir up shit nowadays.
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.
I wonder what the ramifications would be if someone were to politely decline the tablet? Would that person be "black-balled" by PR?
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.I'd happily take a free tablet and critique a game just as harshly as I would anyway. If an event gift is genuinely going to sway your opinion on a game then you shouldn't be reviewing games in the first place. Not taking the gift as part of some higher stance and personal crusade on behalf of the industry just means...you don't get a free gift. This is as big of a deal as people want to make it at the end of the day.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.