geoff's my dawg but this is one of the funniest posts I've seen
geoff's my dawg but this is one of the funniest posts I've seen
I sometimes wonder if game reviews were better before the internet, when we all had to buy game magazines to read them. At least these writers would have other sources of income instead of now where they really do need to get money from somewhere other than their customers' page views (which pay cents, literally. Ouch.)
Every reviewer thinks they are a goddamn celebrity and think they some how matter in the gaming lexicon
If someone on the twittersphere says so and so review was shit/moneyhatted, you see the reviewer come running to reply and take up the shield
With the internet this approach is practically impossible now; if you sell a review it will just get copy-pasted everywhere. So yeah, I don't think moneyhats are going away anytime soon; it's the nature of the business now, and these guys gotta eat.
I can't ever tell what's happening in these threads.
It's usually some fake journalists taking jabs at other fake journalists, right?
I have enough godamn topics, someone make a topic out of this.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...in-self-smugness-over-riccitiello-resignation
"Kotaku reveling in what, due to their self-smugness, they don't realize is a sad day for our industry, which is the platform on which they actually make money. John not only helped propel our company and interactive entertainment into new experiences, thus enticing millions of new people to become 'gamers', his work leading the ESA in recent years has helped ensure that we don't experience the fate of the music industry," Moore said of his former boss. "Sad loss for all of us who had the pleasure of working with him as we emerged from The Burning Platform."
Someone is getting pretty salty. FFS this needs a topic.
Gamers have been conditioned to rarely ever take early reviews seriously, everyone knows that they are typically much higher than the reviews that come out later on
I expect sentences such as "ending this generation with a bang!", "swansong of current gen", "we started with a masterpiece in BioShock, we are ending it with a masterpiece with Infinite" and "BioShock deserves Infinite out of 10!" and other such hyperbolic statements that are more the works of a marketing department than some guy sitting down and reviewing a game.
Though i suppose it will work, i cannot wait for this review, but not for the reasons IGN thinks, i just wanna read it now
Arthur Gies talking about integrity. Oh my god.
Why do game journalists feel so entitled to equal review windows??
One day someone from the gaming industry or surrounding industry will write up a detailed article on how sick the world of gaming journalism is from witnessing specific events first hand. One day we'll get juicy details from future events like the Call of Duty review summits or the like...just carefully waiting.
They weren't. Magazines paid little better than websites, maybe the freelance was better (any pay is better than "free") but I don't think the Andy Eddies of the world lived any happier in the SNES or N64 or Wii eras. And even though there were times where ad revenue ran fat, competition and an immature market meant plenty of garbage ad space (flip to the back of pages of your old GameFans and laugh.) Reviewers don't do it much for the money...
...yeah, they do it for that. Times have changed, but even now many of these guys got into writing about games because they were blogging or running fansites for free before somebody hired them.
Oh guy, you seriously believe in the literal moneyhat? It's a myth, there's no real system of payola. (I'm not saying it's impossible that it's ever happened, but we're talking snipe-hunt, not fish-in-a-barrel.) Realistically, there's not even that clear a connection between Sales and Editorial (the only people I know who ever touched both an ad dollar and a typewriter were running fansites or smaller zines, in a pro site or magazine you have people bringing in the ads and you irregularly know about those deals until the ink is dry.) "Moneyhat" is A) just a joke and a meme, but B) a larger concept of the trail of cash between publishers and media outlets and the question of if that trail is crossed by those who should stay away from it.
If you believe in moneyhats, go write a review. Here's what you'll get paid: a flat fee. But what if my article goes viral? You get the same flat fee. But what if there's a big advertising campaign tied to that game? You get the same flat fee. Reviewers work on flat fees and salaries, they don't work on commission. They care about hits only because A) it helps them stay in the job or get another job if a work does well, a B) and C) and D) it strokes their ego's cock to get a huge readership on an article. Nobody's getting rich writing about game reviews. You know Greg Miller and Jeff Gerstmann and N'Gai Croal because you've seen their work, but don't confuse yourself that they're rich because they're famous.
Plenty of films, documentaries and books have been made on that subject regarding those two industries though. Television as well.Considering the same shit happens and has been happening for years in the music and movie industries I hope you don't hold your breath.
I don't see anything wrong with this seeing as the point of a review, and his job as a reviewer, is supposed inform the consumer about a potential purchase. The relevance of this information lessens considerably once the product is out already. A similar thread runs at the core of this "controversy" right?There's a Rebel FM somewhere in the first half of 2012 where Gies bitched about Polygon not being able to access Diablo 3 before release in order to get the review up in time. If I remember correctly, this was Blizzard's policy for everyone who reviewed the game, so he was essentially suggesting and subsequently bitching that he and all his cronies would be forced to play the game in the same manner as the rest of us undesirable plebeian scum.
It was one of my favorite moments in Gies-dom. Really showing his true colors there.
If you're in the middle of reviewing a game, you probably shouldn't tweet an image of yourself hugging the creative director, right?
https://twitter.com/IGN/status/313758250669584385
I don't see anything wrong with this seeing as the point of a review, and his job as a reviewer, is supposed inform the consumer about a potential purchase. The relevance of this information lessens considerably once the product is out already. A similar thread runs at the core of this "controversy" right?
. Actually, some of us are smart enough to ignore all reviews.
Ken's face says it all.
I laugh at all the jokes and images as well, but when someone makes a serious point that he has no integrity outside of the one event where he went on record to say how it's "good for gamers" that Mountain Dew and Halo partner you have lost me.
That doritos-meme has a live on its own and it's fine to make jokes about it but you can't try to squeeze it back to make some greater non-reasoned point.
Arthur Gies talking about integrity. Oh my god.
But then he would be in a position where his review may not reflect the purchase that the consumer made making the review moot, which makes the opinion even less relevant.
Please elucidate me
is there any reason why an outlet would want this type of exclusivity?
unless they give it a crappy score, who on earth will take them seriously?
even if they are (which I always believe by principle, yeah I know...)
Less distinctive gamers than the people on GAF will flock to the first review.Please elucidate me
is there any reason why an outlet would want this type of exclusivity?
unless they give it a crappy score, who on earth will take them seriously?
even if they are (which I always believe by principle, yeah I know...)
Ken's face says it all.
The shills are upset that someone out-shilled them.
You're surprised that sellouts are sycophantic hypocrites?Hilarious to watch a bunch of sellouts and corporate shills bitching about exclusivity and integrity. Oh my. It must be opposite day.
I still don't see the issue here. Geoff is allowed to state his opinion even though he is no reviewer. And he is correct in bascially saying that exclusive news coverage is fine, exclusive reviews, however, are not. There is a huge difference that some people are either unable to see or just unwilling to see so they can continue fooling themselves into thinking that posting idiotic and pointless doritos photoshops serves some kind of cause. Hint: it does not. It distracts from the actual issues.Well, it's not that he doesn't have *integrity*, it's just that he's complaining about something the site he works for would take in a second. And he's really just a tv presenter. I mean that in a good way, he's a good one, he's good in front of a camera, much better than alot of people in the game industry. But he's not a reviewer, outside of reading a script real well, who cares what he's saying? Yes, it'd be nice if there weren't exclusive reviews. I don't need Geoff, or Arthur Gies to know this. Their POV isn't particularly valuable in the first place (nor is IGN's) so the whole thing is just a bit "sure". People may as well make jokes and have fun if there isn't really something to discuss here.
You're surprised that sellouts are sycophantic hypocrites?
Why does it say Ironcreed wow in the title?
Plebiscites doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, Adam. The word you're looking for is plebeians