Nope.
As I said in the John Walker thread, he's the most dishonest person in the gaming media.
Nope.
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.
Why shouldn't he be? Seriously, this guy is a great interviewer and the Bonus Round talks are mostly great.
The result is pretty much that last tweet. People would rush to be the first to post things since the first one out there is going to get the most clicks. This would de-prioritize well written, thought out reviews and encourage reviewers to rush through games as fast as possible which naturally would lead to a warped perspective of the games they're playing. This of course would make reviews less useful to consumers since it wouldn't be representative of the majority of use cases.What would happen if all of games media broke embargo's and just did what tehy wanted and when? I mean I get the argument that everyone would rush out to publisher a review, but I'm assuming the entire dynamic of publisher/media would change quite a bit, so the same examples wouldnt apply, I would think.
The result is pretty much that last tweet. People would rush to be the first to post things since the first one out there is going to get the most clicks. This would de-prioritize well written, thought out reviews and encourage reviewers to rush through games as fast as possible which naturally would lead to a warped perspective of the games they're playing. This of course would make reviews less useful to consumers since it wouldn't be representative of the majority of use cases.
So all it would do is:
1] Force reviewers to compress their entire process in to an absurd amount of time so they can get the review out there as fast as possible.
2] Gives readers a warped opinion on a game that would be unrepresentative of what their own experience would most likely be.
No one wins in that scenario.
If they broke embargo, wouldn't publishers just choose not to let reviewers play them early? I know I wouldn't bother giving a game to a reviewer who broke our agreement on a previous game.
I do not know the numbers
but arent sites like these not in the same good shape as 5-10 years ago?
Well I agree that everyone isnt just "in it for the money" but half the battle in making money, as a games media website, is creating a form of trust with your audience, so they keep coming back, because they look forward to what you are saying. If all they did, is get teh story out, no matter the cost, I dont think it would be a stretch to say readers would pick-up on it.
Money, readers/consumers, credibility and ect is all connected when it comes to running anything(games media or otherwise) to be financially and critically successful. I mean, games media isnt the only ones who have to deal with conflict of interest, money vs credibility and ect, so it seems a bit disingenuous to imply most dont understand the intricacies of creating a brand, that is financially successful(games media or otherwise).
What would happen if all of games media broke embargo's and just did what tehy wanted and when? I mean I get the argument that everyone would rush out to publisher a review, but I'm assuming the entire dynamic of publisher/media would change quite a bit, so the same examples wouldnt apply, I would think.
If the media as whole did it, I'm not sure publishers would have a choice.
Aren't previews often limited reviews or simply impressions of early versions of a game?
Aren't people interested in them since they are supposed to be at least somewhat representative of what the final game will be like?
Weren't people crucifying Aliens: Colonial Marines and Gearbox only a few weeks ago for misrepresentation of the game with a demo that was in some was drastically different from the final product?
Previews may be functionally different but the purpose of both is supposedly to inform. Once previews lose their objectivity (or perception of the need to be unbiased) you might as well throw it in with the rest of the free promotion the games media gives publishers.
A deal for an exclusive preview may not be as taboo due to reviews coming out around the time someone is getting ready to make their final purchase, but it is subject to the same sort of corruptibility a review would be. You don't think an exclusive early preview would cause an outlet to give more free promo for an upcoming game? You don't think a glowing preview combined with extra promo from someone's favorite game may help make up someone's mind to buy a game before waiting for reviews, especially when there are additional enticing pre-order bonuses you can't get if you wait?
The ongoing soap opera of the gaming press is more fun then actually reading anything they write.
With Facebook and Youtube and official sites and stuff like that, publishers do have a choice in not using the press. There's no press for Walking Dead: Survival Instincts, and I imagine that game will do OK. Call of Duty and WoW and GTA and Super Mario use the press very limitedly even though they are huge, journalists get invited to press events for hands-ons for big bumps but the in-between phases of coverage is sustained by blogs and social posts. For iPhone and Web games, they hardly have the option right now of approaching press because builds are difficult to provide, and press doesn't do well with casual games anyway so if you've got the next Angry Birds, better chances of catching virally on Youtube than in a review. It's all the stuff in the middle that publishers need the press, you can't bring out a Ni No Kuni for instance and hope that enough people love Miyazaki movies to buy the game. And it's the stuff that would be inappropriate on an official site, like opinions and game help and unusual coverage (even if your game is being made fun of, bad press is still press,) that the world still needs media for. But it's a shrinking need, and a media outlet would be foolish (and I'd personally say needlessly motivated, as my position is it is possible to run a media source both reasonably profitably and with reasonable integrity) to burn that bridge and break embargoes willingly.
Does ironcreed do birthday parties?
I dont believe that. When companies are willing to tie pay checks to the meta score, that is admitting more power to the media, then you are indicating here. It's like you are purposely underselling it, by cherry picking examples.
Once again, Adam Sessler continues to be awesome.
I hope everyone leaves those of us who developed the game out of this. It really has nothing to do with us.
Why would they do this....
Games Journalism!
No integrity whatsoever.
The lack of integrity is on behalf of PR companies and the system as well.
Last Edit: This is the integrity of the PR companies as well as gaming journalists. I can add a hundred like this one if you would like me to. So before devs should talk about the press integrity they should talk about their producer's integrity on exclusive reviews and exclusive interviews as well... And maybe about their PR departments too.
Here is your INTEGRITY
Captain Dorito.
Lmao
It's never going away is it.
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.
HAS NO ONE POSTED THE IGN+EA+MASSEFFECT MONEY SCORING GIF??
I didn't know where this was. Thanks to the Battlefield thread.
appropriate.
In my 16 years of covering games professionally, I have admittedly lived in this somewhat delusional bubble as an editorial watchdog. Looking back, has it been the right decision? While you suffer financially for refusing exclusive reviews, it surely helps with perception, right?
Talk to many games journalists who have consistently tried to keep things buttoned-up and theyll speak about how, no matter what they do, theyre still accused of nefarious editorial practices. All the negativity and pessimism make it easier to say, Why bother? From both a financial and perception standpoint, theres very little positive reinforcement to be had.
Players can complain all they want about the integrity of video game journalism, but their clicks control everything. They need to be more aware of the fact that they alone will decide how video games are evaluated and covered in the years to come. If youve come to trust a particular sites opinion, does it really matter if it publishes its review first? And if you dont trust its opinion, you should probably ask yourself why youre supporting it in the first place.
If the media as whole did it, I'm not sure publishers would have a choice.
What time will they release the review?
Apparently Thursday "night". Dont think it says what time.
Very smart article: http://shanesatterfield.tumblr.com/post/45860566906/exclusive-video-game-reviews-no-easy-answer
Read the whole thing, but here are some important excerpts:
9.4
Well, figured as much. Still though, I'm assuming the game will be good so whatever. Still this whole thing is silly.
Like geoff can really say anything about this