Haven't you done enough???
Just kidding.
I haven't had time to read through this thread to absorb the full sweep of issues you guys are discussing. Yesterday, I was focused on our own readers' questions about why we hadn't covered the Florence story and on this thread's discussion of Kotaku. Chatting here helped me understand how much broader the concerns were, which is what I'll be looking into, hopefully without just rehashing the same-old, same-old from other stories about games journalism I and others have done over the years. I've already done pieces about issues with reviews and I've never been compelled strongly about suspicions about reporters and critics being on the take probably in part because I've had the benefit of working at and for outlets (MTV, Kotaku, the NY Times) which are far better insulated from many of the compromising pitfalls (to mix metaphors) than most. Still, it seems there must be new ground to cover here after all, despite my initial skepticism, otherwise this thread wouldn't have gone on so long.
So, thanks for the offer, but I think I'll be able to handle it.
Articles/videos
Wings over Sealand articles (second article has summary) 1 2
Rab Florence (the guy who started all this) criticizing games writing since 2008
John Walker's (Rock Paper Shotgun) blog (start with Games Journalists, And The Perception Of Corruption)
TotalBiscuit
Jim Sterling
Penny-Arcade
Gamasutra
Forbes
Worthplaying
GiantBomb
Old Gamasutra article on the influence of PR
Jason Lauritzen editorial and GAF post
Forum posts etc
Shawn Elliot - 1 (aegies is Arthur Gies of polygon.com) 2 3 4 5 6 on the psychology of PR etc
and some more Arthur Gies - 1 2 3 4 5 and some replies 1 2 3
Jeff Green on the way it actually works
ShockingAlberto on his view as a former games writer
Jason Schreier (Kotaku) - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 reply
N'Gai Croal initial reaction on Twitter
Chris Schilling (freelance) likes both people involved and so doesn't want to write about it
Danny O'Dwyer (Gamespot UK) on why his site won't cover this (audience is not interested) - 1 2 3
Examples of various press kits
The 3DS comes to GiantBomb
GillianSeed79 and firehawk12 on how journalist do criticize their peers
pastapadre on being shunned by the industry
An old episode of CGW Radio discussing Gerstmann-gate
Stephen Totilo (Kotaku)doesn't think this is an important story(has possibly changed his mind about that part, read post 9). Wants to focus on good games journalism, this prompted a pretty funny picture and a comment about it, then Stephen Totilo enters the thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Weekend Confirmed
Syriel on his experiences of PR
Jeff Gerstmann short comment on swag
Snowden's Secret comments on gaming press reactions
Christian Donlan and Simon Parkin of Eurogamer want to change how they do things
I don't even know why you guys seem to be trying to convince Totilo of... whatever you're trying to convince him to do. It's like a farmer asking the fox politely to stop stealing his chickens.
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2012/10/28/games-media-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety/
Not by me, but maybe worth a read?
Where Florence said that PR and journalists were too cozy, I would have said that the balance of power is too far in favour of the PR fraternity. Theres no problem with journalists and PR people being friendly but it should be the PR people who are trying to keep professional favour, not the press. The friendship isnt necessarily an issue but the balance of power certainly is.
4) Metacritic's influence on the industry is stronger than many think. Why do you see so many sites run the same review for multiple versions (PS3, X360, etc.)? Because MC doesn't like it when separate, platform specific reviews are written by the same person. It's fine if the review text and the score are the same, but if the review text and score are different MC thinks that's a bad thing. From a media perspective this presents a conundrum for all but the biggest outlets. After all it's easy enough to have a single staff member play though a single game on multiple platforms and then write up the differences in separate reviews. Having three different people write up three different reviews not only takes up 3x the resources, but it also doesn't ensure a direct comparison. The fact that MC's editors are trying to exert this sort of control over how other outlets produce their coverage is scary.
I don't even know why you guys seem to be trying to convince Totilo of... whatever you're trying to convince him to do. It's like a farmer asking the fox politely to stop stealing his chickens.
http://i.imgur.com/zLQmg.jpg
wow
What a hilariously funny image I now have...
Anyway while I am skeptical of whatever Kotaku might write on this issue, I will remain skeptical until they put something up rather than say "Nah, they won't post anything of value or cover this fairly" or anything.
Give them a chance and all that.
"Microsoft PR literally bought that article: if they hadn't sent that to Kotaku the unboxing would have never happened. This piece is an infomercial.
This whole ordeal has revealed that the PR/journalist symbiosis is worse than we thought--the press doesn't even realize they are being manipulated. If Microsoft came to Totilo and said "Make a video advertising Halo 4" he would have been incensed. Instead they give him freebies knowing how he's going to react."
"Microsoft PR literally bought that article: if they hadn't sent that to Kotaku the unboxing would have never happened. This piece is an infomercial.
This whole ordeal has revealed that the PR/journalist symbiosis is worse than we thought--the press doesn't even realize they are being manipulated. If Microsoft came to Totilo and said "Make a video advertising Halo 4" he would have been incensed. Instead they give him freebies knowing how he's going to react."
I've already said it once, but the games industry is hardly the only one with these kinds of situations.
Do you guys think Engadget buys every piece of hardware they review/preview?
This is the hobby we care about so we're invested in how the attached press handles themselves, but try to remember that this isn't a unique malady among enthusiast press.
For example, sticking with Halo 4, PR freaked out a week or two ago when we ran a video of the intro of the game, embedded from YouTube, with a description of what was in the video. Again, our judgment at the site was that readers would like to know the intro is viewable and check it out. PR tried to convince me this violated the NDA we signed tied to reviewing the game and made it clear that they wanted even the text description we had of the trailer removed. But it didn't violate the NDA and we kept the description up. I mention that not to make you a fan of unboxings but to share my perspective that, in my experience, there is much more of a push-pull that doesn't come close to always aligning with PR/publisher interests. I can't speak for other outlets, but that's been my experience where I've worked.
Choice quote from that article (as most of it is just a recap of the events so far):
While there is a balance of power element (companies give exclusive and early access to games), that's really focusing on a limb instead of the root of the problem.
Again, you don't have to accept that advance copy of a game. You don't have to go to some exclusive preview event. You don't have to be super chummy with PR/development/publishers so you can keep your foot in the door for that potential job on the other side of the aisle.
Microsoft sent you that package because they wanted/hoped to get some coverage of their game this late in the PR cycle. Yes, there might be reasons why covering it is interesting to your readers, but let's not forget that the one and only reason why Microsoft sent you this is to achieve a specific goal (I've mentioned it earlier: Nice huge boxes naturally get more attention, etc). Bluntly said; they play you like puppets. Not necessarily evil or bad for your users in this case, but that's what it is and absolutely nothing else.You're right that if they hadn't send the console we would not have done the unboxing. It wouldn't have been worth the budget or minimal time it took to make this video to get our own. But we also wouldn't have had the special edition console and game a couple of weeks before the game was officially out. So my judgment there is that there are a decent amount of people who would be interested in seeing the thing, sizing up whether it's something they want--particularly with the limited edition game, since those are often bundled with extras that can be of questionable quality. I've found that readers like having some extra info about what's in a special edition to see if it's worth it and prefer to have that info in advance. It's not that different than the purpose reviews serve for some readers, since some readers just want to read a review as shopping advice rather than as the critical assessment of a piece of art.
You're right that if they hadn't send the console we would not have done the unboxing. It wouldn't have been worth the budget or minimal time it took to make this video to get our own. But we also wouldn't have had the special edition console and game a couple of weeks before the game was officially out. So my judgment there is that there are a decent amount of people who would be interested in seeing the thing, sizing up whether it's something they want--particularly with the limited edition game, since those are often bundled with extras that can be of questionable quality. I've found that readers like having some extra info about what's in a special edition to see if it's worth it and prefer to have that info in advance. It's not that different than the purpose reviews serve for some readers, since some readers just want to read a review as shopping advice rather than as the critical assessment of a piece of art.
We actually don't post anything about the vast majority of things we're sent, so it's not as simple as "Company A can send Expensive Thing X and be sure Kotaku will post about it." But you're right to be watchful about that and it, of course, is something I think about any time we have the opportunity to post about something that came in the mail.
PR is always trying to do their job of getting their positive spin out on a game. Sometimes that dovetails with what we want to publish, sometimes it clashes directly with it. For example, sticking with Halo 4, PR freaked out a week or two ago when we ran a video of the intro of the game, embedded from YouTube, with a description of what was in the video. Again, our judgment at the site was that readers would like to know the intro is viewable and check it out. PR tried to convince me this violated the NDA we signed tied to reviewing the game and made it clear that they wanted even the text description we had of the trailer removed. But it didn't violate the NDA and we kept the description up. I mention that not to make you a fan of unboxings but to share my perspective that, in my experience, there is much more of a push-pull that doesn't come close to always aligning with PR/publisher interests. I can't speak for other outlets, but that's been my experience where I've worked.
So, what mental gymnastics are involved in the rationalization for this?
Yeah, because reviews that come out AFTER release are so useful to Day 1 buyers.
That's going to result in even WORSE reviews as they will be rushed to get out as fast as possible.
Honestly, attacking the un-boxing video does nothing to prove your point, because it's a perfectly harmless piece that shows people what's in the box from a different perspective than a straight PR release on MS's site.
Bluntly said; they play you like puppets. Not necessarily evil or bad for your users in this case, but that's what it is and absolutely nothing else.
Are they being ironic or am I missing something?
What stops Microsoft/Xbox posting their own video on youtube showing the unboxing?
The fact they fired all there staff (indie Xbox) as external media are doing it all for them.What stops Microsoft/Xbox posting their own video on youtube showing the unboxing?
What stops Microsoft/Xbox posting their own video on youtube showing the unboxing?
What stops Microsoft/Xbox posting their own video on youtube showing the unboxing?
Give the readers what they want.So, what mental gymnastics are involved in the rationalization for this?
That would be advertising so you have your guard up.
That is why they need Kotaku.
I have a bit of a spin-off question, Totilo. Do you see any major differences between the aggressiveness, and intrusiveness of PR from western game companies and eastern game companies?
I think the thing that really sticks out most about your anecdote is just the relentless insertion of PR opinion into the editorial process, and how aggressive they can be. Do all game companies do this relatively equally?
You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. Just play games and stop worrying who is sponsoring what. If we didn't have scored reviews for game most of this stuff would never happen.
That would be advertising so you have your guard up.
That is why they need Kotaku.
Also when Kotaku review Halo 4 on their shiny new xbox 360 they will subconsciously rate it better. Its human nature , happen to everyone. That why games company host gamer event and let gamer try their games, with free food and drinks and swag
“I think PR can influence scores, definitely,” says Zuniga. “At least by a half point (in a 0-10 scale).” It sounds like small change, but for Zuniga during his tenure at Rockstar, every half-point counted.
Articles/videos
Wings over Sealand articles (second article has summary) 1 2
Rab Florence (the guy who started all this) criticizing games writing since 2008
John Walker's (Rock Paper Shotgun) blog (start with Games Journalists, And The Perception Of Corruption)
TotalBiscuit
Jim Sterling
Penny-Arcade
Gamasutra
Forbes
Worthplaying
GiantBomb
Old Gamasutra article on the influence of PR
Jason Lauritzen editorial and GAF post
Forum posts etc
Shawn Elliot - 1 (aegies is Arthur Gies of polygon.com) 2 3 4 5 6 on the psychology of PR etc
and some more Arthur Gies - 1 2 3 4 5 and some replies 1 2 3
Jeff Green on the way it actually works
ShockingAlberto on his view as a former games writer
Jason Schreier (Kotaku) - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 reply
N'Gai Croal initial reaction on Twitter
Chris Schilling (freelance) likes both people involved and so doesn't want to write about it
Danny O'Dwyer (Gamespot UK) on why his site won't cover this (audience is not interested) - 1 2 3
Examples of various press kits
The 3DS comes to GiantBomb
GillianSeed79 and firehawk12 on how journalist do criticize their peers
pastapadre on being shunned by the industry
An old episode of CGW Radio discussing Gerstmann-gate
Stephen Totilo (Kotaku)doesn't think this is an important story(has possibly changed his mind about that part, read post 9). Wants to focus on good games journalism, this prompted a pretty funny picture and a comment about it, then Stephen Totilo enters the thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Weekend Confirmed
Syriel on his experiences of PR
Jeff Gerstmann short comment on swag
Snowden's Secret comments on gaming press reactions
Christian Donlan and Simon Parkin of Eurogamer want to change how they do things
Precisely. Sites are doing what amounts to "free advertising" anytime they show this crap.What stops Microsoft/Xbox posting their own video on youtube showing the unboxing?
So, what mental gymnastics are involved in the rationalization for this?
Precisely. Sites are doing what amounts to "free advertising" anytime they show this crap.
Do readers like it? Of course. Does that mean game sites should make these videos themselves? Hell, no. Let MS (or whoever) do this junk. Link to it if you absolutely must. As any journalist should know, just because it gets clicks that doesn't mean it's ethical.
Publishers or manufacturers send you this crap. They know they're not "buying" anything from you other than direct access to your readers. That's advertising. You may as well just send MS your readers' email addresses.
I dont even understand what the fuck is useful about this. The box lists its contents. Everybody knows what a 360 is and how it works. The only purpose of showing unboxings is to build anticipating and create allure. In other words, marketing.
Next time I buy fast food maybe I should youtube my "unboxing."
The very fact that a lot of readers apparently dont realize that unboxings are nothing more than marketing just highlights part of the problem.
If you want to do a hardware review, do a hardware review. But that is not what unboxings are. They are just consumer porn.
Exactly. And yet journalists say they're doing nothing wrong. So not only is MS "buying" direct access to readers/viewers, but they're also "buying" a site's credibility. It's dirty. And the fact that journalists don't want to acknowledge or admit this is even dirtier.The reason they don't want to do it is that it is clear the viewer would be more skeptical if MS did it themselves. By having game media do it for them, they borrow their credibility for the purpose of their own marketing.