dragonelite
Member
IGN isn´t the only one with an exclusive review.
lol
-
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.
Bioshock "Exclusive Review" IGN edition - A lot of annoyed journos (Ironcreed wow).
- Thread starter unbias
- Start date
lol
It's a pun.
Doubt it, it's poorly-delivered if so. I assume it's going along the lines of "Plebiscite -> Plebby site", but a good pun would usually have a double meaning implicit in the *real* word; so if it were a pun, something along the lines of "Referendum on quality postponed for plebiscites" would just about work.
dark_inferno
Member
I remember a time where a german website reviewed a settlers game earlier and nobody cared. Now with Bioshock everyone goes apeshit.
Infinite Justice
Member
IGN isn´t the only one with an exclusive review.
He has an extra finger up now? LOLOLOLOL
POWERSPHERE
Banned
Oh no our precious industry!!!!!!
Horse Armour
Member
Gies is definitely reading this thread since he's still been logging into GAF even though he's stopped posting since the Sim City debacle.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
That's basically my only question for them. Why now?
All the rest of the vitriol is just exhausting.
That's what stands out for me. Leads me to believe that just maybe the game is so great that it drove these other outlets to such bitterness. IGN gets exclusive reviews all the time and nobody ever makes a stink over it. Why all of the sudden for this game, unless they are all dying for their coverage to get the most exposure?
I hope everyone leaves those of us who developed the game out of this. It really has nothing to do with us.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Plebsite, as in website. Prettttttty sure that was the joke.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
The idea that an exclusive review is some line in the sand is ridiculous. Exclusive preview coverage is a powerful motivator to inflate scores as well. Why should any reader believe that an outlet that runs any exclusive content from a publisher is going to be an honest broker come review time?
I think this just an example of the bizarre mental gymnastics that the enthusiast press use to arrive at their diluted version of ethics.
I think this just an example of the bizarre mental gymnastics that the enthusiast press use to arrive at their diluted version of ethics.
RedNumberFive
Banned
I think you're giving him way too much credit.
CambriaRising
Member
If he meant plebsite, he'd have said plebsite. That would have worked, and I'd have no objection to it. However, he used "plebiscite", which is a real word with an established meaning which isn't *quite* pronounced in a way which has the required cadence for that parallel to hold true; the extra syllable makes all the difference.
He's either bad at delivering honed gags or he simply confused one word with a very similar word with a very different meaning; a perfectly human mistake to make. Maybe it's the former, but the latter's a much more complimentary option
Since he's including his own site in that bracket, I don't think that's a term he'd use to describe it.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Repeating my post, but he *most* likely started to spell "plebeians" wrong, which auto-corrects to "plebiscites" and he either didn't notice or had a brain fart and picked the suggestion.
Which is why they are more important. People want to see what's new. There are 13 billion (I counted). Game blogs and forums to go to get collective insight of a game. Previews bring in the money for these sites.
This is extremely plausible. I spell plebeian wrong all the time myself (Indeed, I did just then, but I corrected it!). But then, I also inherently distrust autocorrect!
Does Ken really have no say in this kind of thing? That's unfortunate.
Alcoholikaust
Member
I would have given the exclusive review to the guys at classic game room HD. best reviewer on YouTube.
eh I enjoy watching the piranhas scurry for a morsel.
eh I enjoy watching the piranhas scurry for a morsel.
Sessler is a pseudo-intellectual.If he meant plebsite, he'd have said plebsite. That would have worked, and I'd have no objection to it. However, he used "plebiscite", which is a real word with an established meaning which isn't *quite* pronounced in a way which has the required cadence for that parallel to hold true; the extra syllable makes all the difference.
He's either bad at delivering honed gags or he simply confused one word with a very similar word with a very different meaning; a perfectly human mistake to make. Maybe I I t's the former, but the latter's a much more complimentary option
Since he's including his own site in that bracket, I don't think that's a term he'd use to describe it.
I just want to know why there's outcry over this particular exclusive review from journalists. It's been a standard practice for a while for magazines and websites but I've never heard any game writers say anything about it before. Is it just because they want to play Infinite really badly?
XANDER CAGE
Member
I like that this thread is now about a possible bad joke rather than the actual bad joke at hand.
I doubt he has no say in this kind of thing--just not enough of a say to make it worth picking that particular fight. Kinda like the thing with the box art last year.
Exactly. Don't like 2K and IGN's business practice? Then don't visit IGN or cover 2K's games. It's just that easy, right?
I assume they're playing it at the same time, and just not allowed to post their review until later.
They're pissed because it's a publisher's PR team going "DANCE FOR US, PUPPETS, DANCE!" and everyone but the dancer they liked best losing money as a result.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Is this different from every other game with an exclusive review? I assumed that all outlets generally get the game at the same time and whoever had the exclusive was allowed to publish the review earliest.
iamvin22
Industry Verified
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
No one ever blames the game designers for stuff like this, everyone knows this is the publisher's purview.
NoirVisage
Banned
I do concede I may overthink these things, if that's any consolation
You're fine, you just sailed right over their head is all.
j/k, kinda sailed over mine a bit too -__-
Phife Dawg
Member
Had this in mind when I read the OP, comedy gold right there.
OK, this got me, lol.
Muffdraul
Member
There he is! GET HIM.
Ken Masters
Banned
IdreamofHIME
Member
I don't get the outrage either, magazines were getting exclusive reviews for decades. That medium is all but dead now so it only makes sense that websites would inherit those exclusives.
IGN is hardly a beacon of credibility, but a lot of the "outrage" is because it's them. You know for a fact the polygon kids would have killed their grandmothers for an exclusive review and Keighley works for Viacom which owned both Gametrailers and Rockband...didn't stop GT reviewing those games (though they did put up disclaimers when they got backlashed).
IGN is hardly a beacon of credibility, but a lot of the "outrage" is because it's them. You know for a fact the polygon kids would have killed their grandmothers for an exclusive review and Keighley works for Viacom which owned both Gametrailers and Rockband...didn't stop GT reviewing those games (though they did put up disclaimers when they got backlashed).
Seems like that would be bad for your health.
LOLOL did he pay ?
Well, while people like you or me get that, there are many many more that dont(Otherwise they wouldnt do it).
djblackice
Member
Nope.
Yeah because the poor dude looks absolutely thrilled to be there.
Ken Masters
Banned
CamHostage
Member
Are you saying that sites weren't like this about competing for exclusive reviews before 5-10 years ago, or are you saying they're in less financially stable circumstances to turn down high-traffic opportunities even if there's a chance of compromising ethics?
5-10 years ago, it was the same as far as competition. In fact, exclusive reviews started with magazines, back when the publishing date was a hard factor that determined everything about the content. You had a hard choice then, when to review a game, how complete was the build before you went to print with an opinion, was a game important enough to schedule your cover and printing date around. You worked hard to get builds from publishers, you put your ass on the line when you reviewed an only-mostly-complete build, and you used every trick you had to get builds for games you wanted to be your cover.
The practice only seeped into online around the PS2 era. In the early days of the internet, the schedule was all topsy-turvy, some publishers gave out builds and some only gave out boxed product when it was finished, some sites ran like pro sites and worked with publishers while others were fansites that used every method they had (and everybody had a chipped PS1 so the playing field was easy for newbies.) And half the important games came out in Japan anyway, so by the time a review came around people who cared could have actually played it already anyway. Plus, retailers were not under scrutiny, so if you knew a guy at EB Games you had a golden ticket. But around the PS2's time, business started getting more real. MODchips were harder, publishers got serious about their product, western product started becoming a priority... all that, plus money-making via ads became serious enough that fansites could be considered semi-pro or even pro when readership got big enough. Embargoes started being a thing, as publishers realized they had control over their product (and that they needed to exhibit control as there was infighting and illegal tactics where sites were reviewing bootlegs or breaking street dates and chaos reigned; believe it or not, there was once a good reason for embargoes, a long-forgotten reason but one that might have helped make for a more honest gaming press.) Negotiating dates for reviews still wasn't a common practice on the net for years (I only remember it blowing up publicly with Assassin's Creed 1) but it's been on the table for a long, long time.
5-10 years ago, were websites more flush with cash and able to fend off pushy publishers? Yes, but I would argue that a site that has difficulties with its ethics is much more in jeopardy now from the fans than it is from the publishers. A website can always get Punch the Monkey spots; it is always trying for McGriddles. Websites don't want to be beholden to game publishers, and they are constantly trying to get Dew or Doritos or some other sponsor so that they don't have to depend on the game products (but that's mostly because Coke always sells, whereas gaming can be cyclical, I don't know any major sites that would turn down Ubi Money under the assumption that no strings were attached.) Websites depend on a relationship with publishers, but it's a relationship, it's not a raping. Each side has something to get out of it, and each side knows that its audience is too web-savvy to get totally snowed. (Can you toe the line a bit? Yes. But step over it and word gets out.) And when things go wrong, it's the website that takes the biggest hit. (Gerstmann got sassy about K&L, but in the end it was a shitty game that he didn't need to take a stand against, now Gamespot is a shadow of its former self and Eidos is the heralded savior of Square Enix. And SimCity has sold how many millions despite its troubles, and what is Polygon's rep right now?) A smart site is a stable site, and selling out your editorial opinion is a fast road to oblivion. True, you get more hits for exclusive content, but realistically, reviews get read, that head start isn't a matter of millions more clicks, it's only a certain percentage difference. (Reviews can do better long-tail too, you get nice traffic on day 1 but the content is capable of doing multiples of that over its lifespan.) If journalists were paid on commission and really saw the payoff-per-ad-dollar-by-clicks of their work then they might actually be tempted to take a deal (if a deal was ever actually offered; again, the pressure more often comes post-release when somebody is furious about a bad score and threatens to pull access.) But they're more driven by ego than money, and they're aware that their future is better protected by worrying less about "hot" content and worrying more about individualized and popular content that will keep an audience once the "hot" material pulls a few clicks.
If everybody just wanted the story right away no matter the cost, everybody would have had a scored SimCity review up weeks ago without open-audience playtesting and Polygon wouldn't have put its entire reputation on the line in order to introduce an experimental scoring system that tried (but failed) to meet both demands of timeliness and accuracy from its audience. If everybody loved money and didn't give a shit about credibility and thought readers were stupid, they would have slapped a score up and been done with it. Believe it or not, that is not at all the case.
Similar threads
- Locked