Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

We are talking about games journalism, and I used the yearly praise of CoD despite the lack of innovation, evolution, or - on many levels - quality in the series.

You took this as a cue to launch a defense of CoD, because apparently, it shouldn't be critiqued by anybody.

You seem very upset that some people have the audacity to critique the series, and I'm really unsure why. Do you honestly believe that yearly iterations of CoD deserve the all of the praise that they receive by the mainstream gaming media? How is an acceptance and worship of a series that has completely and utterly failed to improve since 2009 anything other than an indicator of low standards?

The Metacritic score of COD 4 : Modern Warfare was a 94.

The Metacritic score of COD : Black Ops II was an 83

A ten point drop in modern AAA gaming is a pretty big drop. Now, it may not be a lot by your standards, but it's not as if COD is getting complete and total praise these days.

 

[njean777]

How on earth have I said that 'my opinion is the only one that matters'?

Do you seriously believe that CoD deserves the yearly praise that it receives from the mainstream gaming media? Honestly?

Yes it does, as its an opinion when we are talking about reviews. Your standards are not the same as mine or anybody else's. You can not equate a review of COD to the whole of gaming journalism being bad and how you do is very beyond me. Its so illogical and just outright absurd. Reviews are not the only part to gaming journalism. They are becoming less relevant everyday.

 

[Optimus Lime]

The Metacritic score of COD 4 : Modern Warfare was a 94.

The Metacritic score of COD : Black Ops II was an 83

A ten point drop in modern AAA gaming is a pretty big drop. Now, it may not be a lot by your standards, but it's not as if COD is getting complete and total praise these days.

You're right - it's not a lot.

But, nothing I say is going to change your mind, your obvious fanboyism is shining through, so let's just drop this. You're right, nobody should ever critique Call Of Duty.

 

[Shosai]

I didn't just say 'CoD sucks', and I don't understand why you are claiming that I did.

I told you. CoD has failed to evolve, failed to innovate, is economically exploitative through a ridiculous regime of DLC, is technologically obsolete, and mechanically degrades annually, with greater game-breaking elements introduced to appeal to the casual market.

It seems that you don't agree, and that's fine. I'm not sure why you seem to believe that these issues shouldn't be discussed - on here, or in the broader gaming media, though.

You're still moving the goalposts duders. No one's taking issue with how you feel about CoD, it's your attacks on the large number of people that do enjoy CoD that's the problem.

If you found it to be "fine" that people didn't agree with your assessment on CoD, then you wouldn't be here insisting that they have lower standards

 

[astarisborn94]

Gaming has changed. It’s no longer about developers, games, or gamers. It’s an endless series of PR battles, fought by marketers and journalists. Gaming, and its consumption of expendable income, has become a well-oiled machine.

Gaming has changed. Bought out journalists eat bought-out Doritos, publish bought-out articles. Mountain Dew inside their bodies enhance and regulate their loyalty. Review control, Information control, pre-order control, DLC control. Everything is monitored, and kept under control.

Gaming has changed. The age of creativity has become the age of risk-free. All in the name of averting catastrophe from used game sales. And he who controls the console wars, controls history. Gaming has changed. When the industry is under total control, gaming… becomes routine.

It is scary to think how close to reality this is. Should this ever happen, I will lose faith in video games, stop pursuing my dream to get into the game industry and just go retro.

I see this as forshadowing unless gamers significantly improve how they use their products. Saving this post for later...

 

[JesseEwiak]

You're right - it's not a lot.

But, nothing I say is going to change your mind, your obvious fanboyism is shining through, so let's just drop this. You're right, nobody should ever critique Call Of Duty.

Um, I've never played a Call of Duty game in my life. You can critique Call of Duty, but yeah, by the standards of the vast majority of people, Call of Duty is still a good video game.

 

[bleachrude]

You're right - it's not a lot.

But, nothing I say is going to change your mind, your obvious fanboyism is shining through, so let's just drop this. You're right, nobody should ever critique Call Of Duty.

And this is the point.

We _ALL_ have different ideas as to what makes a good game...

 

[Optimus Lime]

Yes it does, as its an opinion when we are talking about reviews. Your standards are not the same as mine or anybody else's. You can not equate a review of COD to the whole of gaming journalism being bad and how you do is very beyond me. Its so illogical and just outright absurd.

You seem to be deliberately trying to represent my posts as suggesting that my opinion of CoD should be adopted by the mainstream media.

Why do you keep doing that, when I have already explained that this is not what I'm arguing?

 

[Gaz_RB]

We are talking about games journalism, and I used the yearly praise of CoD despite the lack of innovation, evolution, or - on many levels - quality in the series.

You took this as a cue to launch a defense of CoD, because apparently, it shouldn't be critiqued by anybody.

You seem very upset that some people have the audacity to critique the series, and I'm really unsure why. Do you honestly believe that yearly iterations of CoD deserve the all of the praise that they receive by the mainstream gaming media? How is an acceptance and worship of a series that has completely and utterly failed to improve since 2009 anything other than an indicator of low standards?

You're twisting my words. I was giving a reason for why COD is still given good scores year after year-because they're good games. You are acting like gaming reviewers are giving a shitty game good scores simply based on brand.
I dont give a shit if people critique the series, they should and do.

 

[Kintaro]

I feel the OP's frustrations. I really do. That said, instead of depending on "journalism" and these sites... what happened to us, the gamers? We fixate more on the bad than the good. We crave the smallest of details about shit that really doesn't matter in the long run. We may have become too invested in the hobby.

Perhaps this steams for a series of life changing events I've gone through in the last couple of years, but I remember rushing home excited to play games and share how fun a game is instead of focusing on the negatives or the "drama" we feed. I feel ashamed of myself for it. =/

We are all probably just all playing into the industry's hands. =/

 

[thefit]

Gaming "journalism" was never great I can't think back in the paper magazine days and remember game rags being critical about much if anything regarding games and consoles. Most magazines read like industry magazines and most of the people in it seemed to be in it to play the latest games and write about them not criticize them. It really hasn't changed much.

 

[bennyc12]

Do you seriously believe that CoD deserves the yearly praise that it receives from the mainstream gaming media? Honestly?

Call of Duty deserves to be praised by games journalists like how Jesus is praised by a southern Baptist choir.


Call of Duty is the game this industry deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

 

[Optimus Lime]

You're still moving the goalposts duders. No one's taking issue with how you feel about CoD, it's your attacks on the large number of people that do enjoy CoD that's the problem.

If you found it to be "fine" that people didn't agree with your assessment on CoD, then you wouldn't be here insisting that they have lower standards

I don't think you understand my arguments at all.

 

[unbias]

I didn't just say 'CoD sucks', and I don't understand why you are claiming that I did.

I told you. CoD has failed to evolve, failed to innovate, is economically exploitative through a ridiculous regime of DLC, is technologically obsolete, and mechanically degrades annually, with greater game-breaking elements introduced to appeal to the casual market.

It seems that you don't agree, and that's fine. I'm not sure why you seem to believe that these issues shouldn't be discussed - on here, or in the broader gaming media, though.

Your adjectives have no context. You are giving no explanation why it needed to and/or failed to evolve(into what?), you have failed to mention where it needed to innovate and why. As for DLC... I'm assuming seasons passes cover most of that(not sure seeing as I rarely if ever play the game) so I don't see how it is any different then any other game with a season pass.

Anecdotally, the only people I know of who have been fans of the MWF series and CoD in general dont have too many problems with the game, outside of lag. I've really never been a fan of CoD, but I did enjoy them enough to play through a couple of them, and personally, I thought they were well made compared to a game like gears.

Me personally, I prefer a game like Tribes, but I understand that I'm not gana be able to get my coworker who only plays games once in awhile to pick up a game like that vs CoD. I see nothing damaging that CoD creates, as a game.

Beyond that, nobody said you couldn't talk about it, jsut you seem to have this chip on your shoulder because there are those who think CoD is fine. You seem oddly aggressive over CoD, in terms of anyone who thinks it isnt the worst thing ever.

 

[njean777]

You seem to be deliberately trying to represent my posts as suggesting that my opinion of CoD should be adopted by the mainstream media.

Why do you keep doing that, when I have already explained that this is not what I'm arguing?

Yeah you did, you said that since COD gets good reviews that gaming journalism is terrible. It is one of the most illogical arguments I have seen on this forum.

 

[Optimus Lime]

You're twisting my words. I was giving a reason for why COD is still given good scores year after year-because they're good games. You are acting like gaming reviewers are giving a shitty game good scores simply based on brand.
I dont give a shit if people critique the series, they should and do.

Ah. So if I say that CoD being given great reviews year after year is a sign of a lazy and paid-off gaming press, that's me just insisting that everyone think the same as me and 'attacking' people.

But, if you say that CoD deserves said reviews because 'CoD is a good game', that's not an opinion - it is a fact.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Gaz_RB]

I don't think you understand my arguments at all.

Dude at this point I don't even think you understand the argument you've been making, at least not how people are interpreting it.

Edit: I'm done giving you attention.

 

[tbm24]

As someone with a PS4 preorder ready to go, there's nothing about the system I don't already know that I actively care about.

Plays games? Check
Works online? Check
PSN+ detailed? Check
Games are gonna look good and only get better based on what has been shown thus far? Check
Price? Check
Controller looks good? Check

I'm not really sure what anyone else needs beyond that to decide whether or not they want to pick up a ps4 the day it comes out.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Beyond that, nobody said you couldn't talk about it, jsut you seem to have this chip on your shoulder because there are those who think CoD is fine. You seem oddly aggressive over a CoD, in terms of anyone who thinks it isnt the worst thing ever.

Oh, for god's sake. Grow up.

 

[UberTag]

I'm failing to see how the gaming press is different from the movie or music press.

Music isn't dependent on Day 1 sales due to not being restricted by shelf space. It's widely offered digitally. Movies are restricted by theater screen availability but major studios are able to discern what will draw an audience and what's a tougher sell and will go the equivalent of the "indie" route to get them exposure - be it limited release and/or film festivals so they can build on word-of-mouth.

In both cases, the critics who follow those industries aren't policed as rigidly by the content suppliers because Day 1 isn't as important as it is in gaming and those critics also have the ability to express their own independent views because their salaries aren't paid for BY the content suppliers (either directly or indirectly). The gaming enthusiast press doesn't have either luxury. The movie and music industries have a working relationship with their press whereas game publishers enslave their press by tying their hands and holding their paycheck hostage.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

How on earth have I said that 'my opinion is the only one that matters'?

Do you seriously believe that CoD deserves the yearly praise that it receives from the mainstream gaming media? Honestly?

It isn't my job to say but to suggest the games are just a $100 expansion packs shows your ignorance. They offer a full package for $60 with a new campaign each time along with new maps for multiplayer.

It's about enjoyment. Some people feel satisfied playing a single player game that lasts for 10-12 hours while others can play a game like call of Duty for hours every day for months. Call of Duty isn't going to win any GOTY awards but they have a winning formula.

You're right - it's not a lot.

But, nothing I say is going to change your mind, your obvious fanboyism is shining through, so let's just drop this. You're right, nobody should ever critique Call Of Duty.

So someone shows you that Call of Duty is not always favored highly and you attack them. Real classy.

 

[njean777]

Oh, for god's sake. Grow up.

Me thinks you need to follow your advice.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I'm rather content with the amount of information they've given out on the technical side. Most of that is just for epeen measuring anyway. I'm not obsessed over 720-900-1080p native resolutions. It is going to be upscaled either way and whatever image quality I get, that is what I will enjoy. I'm not going to cry if I don't have the best out there. All I need is the necessary information to get me interested in the game and enough information to determine how interested I am in it.

Saying journalism is "dead"... come on hyperbole much? But anyway, saying that with such vitriol about embargo practices etc... Makes me feel like you don't even understand what embargoes are meant to accomplish. They aren't meant to be tools to hide things. They're a tool to ensure each news outlet gets an equal opportunity for a full and fair review of the product.







And lets face it, if you already pre-ordered and your pre-order becomes finalized, that is the risk you took for agreeing to purchase a piece of tech on day 1 ahead of time. If that is such an issue, that you don't have every fact necessary, maybe you should not have pre-ordered in the first place. IMO if you're worried about every tiny detail, you should not be pre-ordering the console and then complaining that you don't know every tiny detail. Most of these tiny details are ALWAYS revealed after tech releases. Especially game quality.

 

[unbias]

I'm rather content with the amount of information they've given out on the technical side. Most of that is just for epeen measuring anyway. I'm not obsessed over 720-900-1080p native resolutions. It is going to be upscaled either way and whatever image quality I get, that is what I will enjoy. I'm not going to cry if I don't have the best out there. All I need is the necessary information to get me interested in the game and enough information to determine how interested I am in it.

Saying journalism is "dead"... come on hyperbole much? But anyway, saying that with such vitriol about embargo practices etc... Makes me feel like you don't even understand what embargoes are meant to accomplish. They aren't meant to be tools to hide things. They're a tool to ensure each news outlet gets an equal opportunity for a full and fair review of the product.







And lets face it, if you already pre-ordered and your pre-order becomes finalized, that is the risk you took for agreeing to purchase a piece of tech on day 1 ahead of time. If that is such an issue, that you don't have every fact necessary, maybe you should not have pre-ordered in the first place. IMO if you're worried about every tiny detail, you should not be pre-ordering the console and then complaining that you don't know every tiny detail. Most of these tiny details are ALWAYS revealed after tech releases. Especially game quality.

Bold - Their "intention" is to make sure all media outlets have fair use, but if you cant see how embargo's can be manipulated to make the media sing to the industries tune... Well, I guess we will just have to disagree, but I think that statement is a little naive, personally. While you are technically right, embargo's are used in industry(not just gaming) not just for their intended purpose.

 

[jschreier]

You expect thorough journalism, yet you're angry that journalists haven't done anything about the 1080p issue within three days? Come on.

One difference between "ex-editors, CBOAT and insiders" and journalists is that journalists have track records. They have to be more thorough. They have to make sure that what they're reporting is correct, and they have to be sure to contextualize that information properly. Believe it or not, that takes time.

It's the same thing that happened with Aliens: Colonial Marines. When that game came out, I wanted to report the story of what happened, but for weeks, as I was talking to people and trying to confirm everything I'd learned, all I saw on NeoGAF, Reddit, and other gaming websites was a non-stop barrage of anonymous rumors and insiders - half of which were totally wrong - as I tried to find the real story. When I published my investigation (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515848), people had already read tons of nonsense, and the story suffered because of that.

So you say you want thorough journalism, yet you're quick to hop on every vague tweet and anonymous insider you can find? Something doesn't compute here.

In the case of Call of Duty... I'm not under any embargoes, nor do I know much about all the nonsense that has gone down here. (If you are privy to info, anonymous tips are always welcome.)

Now, yes, I hate vague teasing tweets just as much as the rest of you. I believe it's a journalist's job to be honest and candid and work to acquire information for readers, not for themselves or the people they cover. And I'm certainly not the only reporter who thinks that way. So how do you think we feel when people on NeoGAF shit all over us and our sites while embracing anonymous Redditors or "insiders" who are purposefully inflammatory and wrong half the time?

Besides, if you read Kotaku, you knew about all this Microsoft stuff months ago anyway. http://kotaku.com/about-microsoft-being-six-months-behind-with-the-next-486212937

 

[jschreier]

Also, I should add that Sessler's vague tweets have nothing to do with CallofDutyGate or anything that will affect NeoGAFfers very much at all. He's not the type of guy who would tease people like that.

 

[AzraelDC]

Ah. So if I say that CoD being given great reviews year after year is a sign of a lazy and paid-off gaming press, that's me just insisting that everyone think the same as me and 'attacking' people.

The argument about COD becomes funnier when you replace COD with "Britney Spears" and "Gaming Press" with "Music Press"

Just sayin. =)

That said, and not to derail....the trade press for games is pretty much a travesty. Dorito-Gate was the last straw for me. Between that and the overriding threat the press live under (of being denied access) makes realistic, fair and good reporting and reviewing nearly impossible.

The one thing I think could help is the Consumer Union model. Consumer Reports actually takes nothing from the manufacturers they review. They buy off the shelf, or privately through the dealers...they never reveal their identities. They make their money from subscriptions. It's something I'd pay for. Especially if I knew they were "untouchables" in the sense that....they take nothing...no freebees, no swag, etc.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Nerokis]

In this case, I think some self-examination is warranted. No one in their right mind should expect things to unfold according to NeoGAF's timetable, and as confused as this entire situation seems, that's no more the fault of "poor journalism" than it is our own. This entire thing has been an example of us as a whole doing a horrible job of absorbing information: the latching onto every context-less tweet (or worse, 4chan post), the shortsightedness that emphasizes instant gratification over patience, the knee-jerk reactions that don't bother with actually collecting the facts. It strikes me as incredibly silly to blame games journalists in this scenario, when really, NeoGAF fueled this entire thing.

Responsible journalism isn't reactionary journalism. A forum getting heated over some leaks does not warrant rushing to get information, any information!, out to the public. Chances are there's plenty of confusion to go around, and whatever journalists in the know have to say on the matter is either 1). connected to a process that includes embargos, NDAs, etc., or 2). fragmented, not fully sourced or clarified, or what have you. The threshold for NeoGAF latching onto any given leak is fairly low. The threshold for a journalist doing so should be much higher.

Now, I use words like "journalists" loosely. Who, exactly, qualifies as a journalist in this sphere isn't a debate I've fully run through in my head. But it doesn't really matter. This "what happened to the industry?" reaction is as overly dramatic as were all the various reactions in the earlier thread that had to be closed.

 

[lucius]

Even some game journalists have admitted in past that half of them want to work for the companies they cover and can you blame them, look at all the shuffling of game reviewers journalists, even top editors, it just does not seem that secure a job. I remember a long time ago when Roger Ebert called out many of his peers that were taking all these perks from the studios that they were reviewing films for, since then things are better at least in that industry. A positive in the film industry now is all the time you see a film where bad reviews don't matter it still succeeds. In game industry reviews and even they way they cover a game can really hurt a games sales big time, so it's too bad that some places still don't even put a name to a review and other shady things that go on behind the scenes.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Bold - Their "intention" is to make sure all media outlets have fair use, but if you cant see how embargo's can be manipulated to make the media sing to the industries tune... Well, I guess we will just have to disagree, but I think that statement is a little naive, personally. While you are technically right, embargo's are used in industry(not just gaming) not just for their intended purpose.

If they wanted to hide something, they would never send up review copies or codes in the first place. Embargoes serve one real purpose and that is what I stated. If you've pre-purchased something before a review has come out, that is your own risk you took.

Edit:
Remember... giving advanced time to review a game to a review site or youtuber is not a right it is a privilege.

edit 2: One other reason for an embargo would be for exclusivity in reviews but we've seen that so rarely and I am pretty sure people got hammered by other press outlets for accepting that deal.

 

[Green Wiggly]

I like playing video games, they're pretty cool.

They are, aren't they? I've had my ups and downs with some aspects of the game industry this gen, but I'm still having so much fun.

 

[Gaz_RB]

You expect thorough journalism, yet you're angry that journalists haven't done anything about the 1080p issue within three days? Come on.

One difference between "ex-editors, CBOAT and insiders" and journalists is that journalists have track records. They have to be more thorough. They have to make sure that what they're reporting is correct, and they have to be sure to contextualize that information properly. Believe it or not, that takes time.

It's the same thing that happened with Aliens: Colonial Marines. When that game came out, I wanted to report the story of what happened, but for weeks, as I was talking to people and trying to confirm everything I'd learned, all I saw on NeoGAF, Reddit, and other gaming websites was a non-stop barrage of anonymous rumors and insiders - half of which were totally wrong - as I tried to find the real story. When I published my investigation (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515848), people had already read tons of nonsense, and the story suffered because of that.

So you say you want thorough journalism, yet you're quick to hop on every vague tweet and anonymous insider you can find? Something doesn't compute here.

In the case of Call of Duty... I'm not under any embargoes, nor do I know much about all the nonsense that has gone down here. (If you are privy to info, anonymous tips are always welcome.)

Now, yes, I hate vague teasing tweets just as much as the rest of you. I believe it's a journalist's job to be honest and candid and work to acquire information for readers, not for themselves or the people they cover. And I'm certainly not the only reporter who thinks that way. So how do you think we feel when people on NeoGAF shit all over us and our sites while embracing anonymous Redditors or "insiders" who are purposefully inflammatory and wrong half the time?

Besides, if you read Kotaku, you knew about all this Microsoft stuff months ago anyway. http://kotaku.com/about-microsoft-being-six-months-behind-with-the-next-486212937

I agree with most of what you wrote, I think a lot of people don't really understand what journalism entails.

One thing to think about though: it's best not to lump all of GAF together and make blanket statements. We've got a loud minority here sometimes.

Nice to have someone with experience weigh in though, thanks.

They are, aren't they? I've had my ups and downs with some aspects of the game industry this gen, but I'm still having so much fun.

I think people forget sometimes that this is really the point of our entire industry.

 

[-PXG-]

I lost all faith in gaming journalism years ago. Like a VERY long time ago. I just try to make the most self informed decisions as humanly possible. Thank goodness for the internet and user testimonials too.

But yeah, I wish the press would grow some balls and collectively tell publishers to go fuck themselves and just spill it. Good or bad.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Which gets all their gaming news from other websites...

Well, obviously the gaming news that comes from GAF is from GAF, but for the interesting news gathered from other sites it's conveniently filtered and gathered in one place here. I used to frequent N4G for similar reasons but that place... has issues.

 

[Fracas]

Videogame journalism needs a complete overhaul. There are a handful of publications I somewhat trust, but they've vastly outweighed by what is basically third party PR.

 

[Gaz_RB]

Well, obviously the gaming news that comes from GAF is from GAF, but for the interesting news gathered from other sites it's conveniently filtered and gathered in one place here. I used to frequent N4G for similar reasons but that place... has issues.

Yeah I understand what you mean. GAF is good for filtering the news sites down to stuff I actually care about.

But I still think we should support gaming media sites because ultimately they are the ones providing the stories that we break down and discuss, and I think you'd agree with me.

 

[unbias]

You expect thorough journalism, yet you're angry that journalists haven't done anything about the 1080p issue within three days? Come on.

One difference between "ex-editors, CBOAT and insiders" and journalists is that journalists have track records. They have to be more thorough. They have to make sure that what they're reporting is correct, and they have to be sure to contextualize that information properly. Believe it or not, that takes time.

It's the same thing that happened with Aliens: Colonial Marines. When that game came out, I wanted to report the story of what happened, but for weeks, as I was talking to people and trying to confirm everything I'd learned, all I saw on NeoGAF, Reddit, and other gaming websites was a non-stop barrage of anonymous rumors and insiders - half of which were totally wrong - as I tried to find the real story. When I published my investigation (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515848), people had already read tons of nonsense, and the story suffered because of that.

So you say you want thorough journalism, yet you're quick to hop on every vague tweet and anonymous insider you can find? Something doesn't compute here.

In the case of Call of Duty... I'm not under any embargoes, nor do I know much about all the nonsense that has gone down here. (If you are privy to info, anonymous tips are always welcome.)

Now, yes, I hate vague teasing tweets just as much as the rest of you. I believe it's a journalist's job to be honest and candid and work to acquire information for readers, not for themselves or the people they cover. And I'm certainly not the only reporter who thinks that way. So how do you think we feel when people on NeoGAF shit all over us and our sites while embracing anonymous Redditors or "insiders" who are purposefully inflammatory and wrong half the time?

Besides, if you read Kotaku, you knew about all this Microsoft stuff months ago anyway. http://kotaku.com/about-microsoft-being-six-months-behind-with-the-next-486212937

I can count of half a hand the media outlets that have covered Bethesda's past and more recent take overs... The reason people are quick to crap on outlets, is because the benefit of the doubt is perceived(and rightly so as a whole, imo) to be more on the producers side, then the consumers in terms of timing. Beyond that I'm not sure why you personally would be offended by this, since I don't think most people at Gaf think you pander to industry. Gaf's shit storm is normally directed at the "usual suspects". Also, you have to realize news organizations in general are less trustworthy now, so it takes more effort to garner the benefit of the doubt, imo.

I mean, when you have this: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/03/bethesda-arkane-is-not-involved-in-prey-2

With lines like this:

Gamers looking forward to Prey 2 will no doubt be disappointed with the game's messy development, but it is encouraging that Bethesda hasn't outright given up on the project. Provided Human Head can get the game's quality up to whatever bar Bethesda has set, we may still see it released one day.

when the article that he got his source from even had this line(RPS article:

But clearly, people were extremely excited about what Prey 2 at least looked like it would become. I asked Hines if the plan was still to pursue something resembling that vision, if not an entirely similar path to realizing it. At that point, unfortunately, he got a bit cagey. A long, brow-furrowing pause, and then:

It makes to hard to want to defend or give the benefit of the doubt to these websites.

Rumors have proven false for sure... This was before your article I might add. And that is just a simple example.

 

[MMaRsu]

You're right it's disgusting. Grow some fucking balls journo's.

 

[unbias]

If they wanted to hide something, they would never send up review copies or codes in the first place. Embargoes serve one real purpose and that is what I stated. If you've pre-purchased something before a review has come out, that is your own risk you took.

Edit:
Remember... giving advanced time to review a game to a review site or youtuber is not a right it is a privilege.

But the conclusion to the value of a review before the game launches is simply PR... So again, I'm not seeing how this would help the argument, that embargo's are anything but a bad thing. Also, that privilege exists because it benefits them monetarily, in the long run, because it encourages pre-orders, so again it is just harmful in its current form.

 

[Megasoum]

My bet is that IGN has a bunch of exclusive review stuff for some of the launch games making it impossible for Rev 3 or Polygon to run those review hence the lost of revenue.

 

[nded]

Companies started catering to people that aren't me.

I also get the impression that lots of games "journalists' are in it for the free games and paycheck or possibly a way to break into the industry.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

A man once said on here:

The best way to handle reviews if you want transparency is to buy the games. The best way to make money by running a website devoted to covering videogames is to spend as little money as possible buying the games or paying the writers. After all, your output is given away for free.

There's a lot of talking in this thread, but the reality is that gamers got what they wanted. You don't have to pay for magazines to get your coverage anymore and it's all free on the web whenever you feel like reading it.

So you get what you pay for...

We are not their customers. We are however, at large turning a deaf ear to this when it does occur.

We're reaping what we've sown.

Something is happening with video * on next gen, I reckon. Thoughts?

Control. Smart publishers and the like will realize the quality of free advertising, but most publishers and the like are not smart.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

But the conclusion to the value of a review before the game launches is simply PR... So again, I'm not seeing how this would help the argument, that embargo's are a bad thing. Also, that privilege exists because it benefits them monetarily, in the long run, because it encourages pre-orders, so again it is just harmful in its current form.

I think you're missing the point though. If there was no embargo it would just benefit the review sites to get their review up first to get the early hits. The more early hits they have, the higher that they rank on search engines. The higher they rank on search engines the more viewers they get in the long run, the more money, the more growth, etc.

If you didn't have embargoes the priority would be just to get the fastest review out there. Not all sites would do this but a lot of them would because they frankly don't have integrity they just want to capture the most views they can per article. The only reason they play by these embargo rules is so they aren't blacklisted.

The benefits of the embargo actually give more time for reviewers to play the game, form a solid opinion, and thus give a more accurate and full review of the game. This is actually beneficial to consumers.

And as I mentioned in my edit, it has been extremely rare that they give exclusive review rights to a site and those sites have been slammed for accepting that agreement by other news outlets. I can think of only one instance and that was bioshock infinite.

 

[unbias]

I think you're missing the point though. If there was no embargo it would just benefit the review sites to get their review up first to get the early hits. The more early hits they have, the higher that they rank on search engines. The higher they rank on search engines the more viewers they get in the long run, the more money, the more growth, etc.

If you didn't have embargoes the priority would be just to get the fastest review out there. Not all sites would do this but a lot of them would because they frankly don't have integrity they just want to capture the most views they can per article. The only reason they play by these embargo rules is so they aren't blacklisted.

The benefits of the embargo actually give more time for reviewers to play the game, form a solid opinion, and thus give a more accurate and full review of the game. This is actually beneficial to consumers.

And as I mentioned in my edit, it has been extremely rare that they give exclusive review rights to a site and those sites have been slammed for accepting that agreement by other news outlets. I can think of only one instance and that was bioshock infinite.

So is it your stance that the preorder push currently in the industry is a healthy thing, and not a point of malinvestment? Without embargo's in todays media market you would see social media take a hold of it via lets plays and quick looks(which is the way game press is moving anyways). I see no downside of the loss of embargo's outside of the current business model of reviews dying out(which would be great, imo). I'm just not seeing much of a upside to embargo's from the consumers perspective.

Accurate reviews just are not near as helpful anymore then actually watching someone play the game. IT is why people like TB are gaining more popularity and review sites are not.

 

[Stripper13]

You expect thorough journalism, yet you're angry that journalists haven't done anything about the 1080p issue within three days? Come on.

One difference between "ex-editors, CBOAT and insiders" and journalists is that journalists have track records. They have to be more thorough. They have to make sure that what they're reporting is correct, and they have to be sure to contextualize that information properly. Believe it or not, that takes time.

It's the same thing that happened with Aliens: Colonial Marines. When that game came out, I wanted to report the story of what happened, but for weeks, as I was talking to people and trying to confirm everything I'd learned, all I saw on NeoGAF, Reddit, and other gaming websites was a non-stop barrage of anonymous rumors and insiders - half of which were totally wrong - as I tried to find the real story. When I published my investigation (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515848), people had already read tons of nonsense, and the story suffered because of that.

So you say you want thorough journalism, yet you're quick to hop on every vague tweet and anonymous insider you can find? Something doesn't compute here.

In the case of Call of Duty... I'm not under any embargoes, nor do I know much about all the nonsense that has gone down here. (If you are privy to info, anonymous tips are always welcome.)

Now, yes, I hate vague teasing tweets just as much as the rest of you. I believe it's a journalist's job to be honest and candid and work to acquire information for readers, not for themselves or the people they cover. And I'm certainly not the only reporter who thinks that way. So how do you think we feel when people on NeoGAF shit all over us and our sites while embracing anonymous Redditors or "insiders" who are purposefully inflammatory and wrong half the time?

Besides, if you read Kotaku, you knew about all this Microsoft stuff months ago anyway. http://kotaku.com/about-microsoft-being-six-months-behind-with-the-next-486212937

While I agree with a lot of what you said - this was directed not at Kotaku specifically, nor even gaming journalists specifically - but at the industry. I would say in regards to Colonial Marines, your comprehensiveness is respected - but the Internet is immediate. It may mean that you can't fact check every element - and perhaps it's worth not mentioning those elements at all... but it has been clear for a while now (not just 3 days) that resolutions, ESRAM and power were all big issues.. and we haven't heard squat in terms of coverage (the 'Microsoft 6 months behind' doesn't really cover very much that we didn't already know).

More importantly however - the thread was directed at developers/publishers as well. There is no excuse for the non-answers and PR dribble we've seen over the last few weeks and months - and I'd love to hear your opinion on that.

When the best answer we can get from anyone involved in the XB1/COD issue is 'I've seen both, and it'll look fantastic' - it's clear that far too many hands are tied when it comes to discussing titles 3 weeks from being in the hands of the consumer.

As for CBOAT - his track record is as good as any journalist I've encountered - I've read misinformation from gaming sites far more often than CBOAT.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

So is it your stance that the preorder push currently in the industry is a healthy thing, and not a point of malinvestment? Without embargo's in todays media market you would see social media take a hold of it via lets plays and quick looks(which is the way game press is moving anyways). I see no downside of the loss of embargo's outside of the current business model of reviews dying out(which would be great, imo). I'm just not seeing much of a upside to embargo's from the consumers perspective.

Accurate reviews just are not near as helpful anymore then actually watching someone play the game. IT is why people like TB are gaining more popularity and review sites are not.

Where did I say the preorder push is a healthy thing? I am against preordering tech and games. I've probably done it about 3-4 times in my entire life. WoW:BC, bioshock infinite, blackberry playbook, + 1 or 2 CoDs. There is risk associated with preordering tech because you will never have the full story before release - whether it is a professional review or some youtuber with some VO commentary.

I don't know how better I can explain the situation with embargoes. The effect of embargoes benefits reviews and therefore benefits consumers. I've explained the downside and the upside in the previous post. Please review that as I don't feel inclined to repeat myself atm. If you still don't see it... well... I'm just going to move on. No point in banging my head over explaining something over and over.

 

[Mik2121]

If casual people knew more about all the shit that's been going on for the last 3 months with the game journalists, it would be quite embarrassing to claim to be part of the gaming community.

Some publishers trying to fuck with people, and many journalists thinking they're more important than what they really are.

At the end of the day people will be at home playing their PS4s and Xbox Ones, reviewers will continue writing reviews and overall I don't think there's going to be that big of a change.

 

[Kocolino67]

This whole situation is a glaring spotlight on the sorry state of journalism in this industry. The minute these rumours popped up - there should have been journalists from multiple sites working to uncover the truth and reveal or at least outline the issues/cause behind all of it.

I can see you point, but when economic and political journalists obviously fail very hard these days, I see no reason how members of the gaming branch of journalism holding the torch of investigative research higher than their older brothers. Especially when gaming journalism is still divided in three main sections: "previews/reviews", "press release copy pasta" & rare "editorials". Which reminds me more of sport journalism than of 'serious business'.

 

[Dennis]

Good OP.

Right on the money (hats).

 

[ArkkAngel007]

If casual people knew more about all the shit that's been going on for the last 3 months with the game journalists, it would be quite embarrassing to claim to be part of the gaming community.

Some publishers trying to fuck with people, and many journalists thinking they're more important than what they really are.

At the end of the day people will be at home playing their PS4s and Xbox Ones, reviewers will continue writing reviews and overall I don't think there's going to be that big of a change.

You can say that about a lot of people in the gaming community (consumer bit) acting the same way.