Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

I meant the quality of the content, not if it literally happened.

The actual top 10 list, which is barely even being discussed, is exactly what you would expect to see from ANYONE discussing the game. My entire point is that the actual quality and integrity of the video is not in any way affected by the corporate sponsorship.

Has anyone actually watched it?

It's scary you don't realize that sponsored content inherently carries less integrity than proper editorial content.

If an oil company paid a New York Times reporter to write a story about how the company does really great things for environmentalism, and the reporter writes a story that is factually accurate and correct, would you say there's no problem because the story itself is fine?

 

[alr1ght]

I agree, I watched it and I actually agree with most of the moments in the top 10 and I'm sure people are just jumping into conclusions by reading the slightly misleading title.

EA is paying for GT to make a countdown about one of their games. There is nothing misleading about it.

 

[Haunted]

Dead Space 1 and 2 were both in the 9's for me.

I have high expectations for DS3, as well. If it places that highly it will have met my expectations. I will not automatically assume they were paid off because a developer with a track record of making amazing games makes another amazing game and they get praised for it.

I'm not saying the review is going to be paid off, I'm not saying the review is going to be influenced. I'm saying that seeing those ads plastered over the site and these sponsored videos being created make me think that the possibility exists.

And that's enough to make me not trust and not listen to the review, no matter if it ends up being accurate or not. The appearance of impropriety (even if there is no actual impropriety) is enough.


edit: ^^ what faceless said

 

[antitrop]

It's scary you don't realize that sponsored content inherently carries less integrity than proper editorial content.

If an oil company paid a New York Times reporter to write a story about how the company does really great things for environmentalism, and the reporter writes a story that is factually accurate and correct, would you say there's no problem because the story itself is fine?

It's a fucking top 10 list about Dead Space games. How much integrity does it need? All I ask is that the person ranking the moments has played both the games, no amount of money can persuade him which moment in Dead Space 2 was better than a certain moment of Dead Space 1, because it doesn't matter. Money cannot inherently affect a top 10 list like this.

It's not like EA's money will get the guy to choose the eyeball machine moment over worm in the hallyway moment, give me a fucking break.

Except this is an ad masquerading as an opinion piece. Cmon, let's call a spade a spade.

It's very clearly both.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I don't see a problem. This is obviously a topically relevant ad for a game that comes out next week. Of course EA paid for it, that's how advertising works.

Except this is an ad masquerading as an opinion piece. Cmon, let's call a spade a spade.

 

[fvng]

Except this is an ad masquerading as an opinion piece. Cmon, let's call a spade a spade.

How is it masquerading when they are disclosing upfront it's sponsored content paid by EA?

 

[FairXchange]

It's important to be ethical in all games journalism but for crying out loud the countdown is harmless, it's clearly indicated to be sponsored and to top it off it's a decent countdown.

 

[NoirVisage]

How is it masquerading when they are disclosing upfront it's sponsored content paid by EA?

don't feed it logic, you'll kill it.

 

[Mooreberg]

The PR cycle for this game has been like a shorter, more concentrated burst of DmC. When somebody is offered the opportunity to clear things up in an interview, they just keep digging.

 

[sublimit]

Is anyone here surprised?Gametrailers have been promoting games from other publishers as well for a long while now.
It's one of the reasons their reviews (for big budget games) are nothing but jokes.

 

[fvng]

It's one of the reasons their reviews (for big budget games) are nothing but jokes.

I have seen them trash games in their video reviews while their web pages were swamped with ads for that very same game. So what are you talking about?

 

[faceless007]

It's a fucking top 10 list about Dead Space games. How much integrity does it need?

This attitude is why the gaming press has an abysmal reputation.

It's very clearly both.

That you think it's possible for an opinion piece--meaning, a piece representing the opinion of the media outlet--can also be sponsored--meaning, representing the opinion of the advertiser--is quite telling.

Blurring this line serves no one except big publishers.

 

[dmr87]

I just checked GT and saw that, I thought to myself, "reeeally GT? Worst countdown everrr" Gave it a thumbs down and left the site.

 

[AppleMIX]

Eh, it's not like GT countdown had any integrity to begin with.

 

[BillyBats]

Is anyone here surprised?Gametrailers have been promoting games from other publishers as well for a long while now.
It's one of the reasons their reviews (for big budget games) are nothing but jokes.

Which ones? Here's a small sample of some "big budget" game review scores from Gametrailers and their Metacritic average.

DMC 8.5/85

Persona 4 9.4/94

Walking Dead 5 9.3/89

Just Dance 5.2/74

Farcry 3 8.6/90

COD 9.4/83

Halo 4 9.0/87

Ok, this is just a small sampling of their latest reviews, but what is the problem? The scores fall in line with everyone else. Or is the narrative that all review sites are paid off maaaan.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

Hey at least it's better to be sponsored by EA than that She is out of my League, that countdown still baffles me.

 

[MormaPope]

Which ones? Here's a small sample of some "big budget" game review scores from Gametrailers and their Metacritic average.

DMC 8.5/85

Persona 4 9.4/94

Walking Dead 5 9.3/89

Just Dance 5.2/74

Farcry 3 8.6/90

COD 9.4/83

Halo 4 9.0/87

Ok, this is just a small sampling of their latest reviews, but what is the problem? The scores fall in line with everyone else. Or is the narrative that all review sites are paid off maaaan.

Seems like Gametrailers pays people to analyze past review scores and ballpark a review average for upcoming games, then with their projection they rate the game a score they feel will satisfy regulars and such.

 

[patapuf]

GT hosts tons of trailers which are purely advertisements for games.

But a sponsored top 10 list (which may as well be a trailer) is a problem? It's not like they hide the fact that EA paid for it.

 

[fvng]

Which ones? Here's a small sample of some "big budget" game review scores from Gametrailers and their Metacritic average.

DMC 8.5/85

Persona 4 9.4/94

Walking Dead 5 9.3/89

Just Dance 5.2/74

Farcry 3 8.6/90

COD 9.4/83

Halo 4 9.0/87

Ok, this is just a small sampling of their latest reviews, but what is the problem? The scores fall in line with everyone else. Or is the narrative that all review sites are paid off maaaan.

quoting this because it's an important post.

GT hosts tons of trailers which a purely advertisements for games.

But a sponsored top 10 list (which may as well be a trailer) is a problem? It's not like they hide the fact that EA paid for it.

you really think trailers are the only content on that site? they've done some pretty great interviews with key developers in the industry. they've had some pretty honest discussions on the game industry, and it's not always complimentary.

this "they're paid off" hogwash is getting boring.

 

[patapuf]

quoting this because it's an important post.



you really think trailers are the only content on that site?

no i don't. The point i was making is that they host tons of sponsored content in the form of trailers, it's how the site got big in the first place. I fail to see how a (clearly indicated) sponsored top 10 list is so much worse than a sponsored trailer, or advertisement or whatever other promotion is running constantly on that site. Now, if they pretended that it was editorial content it would be problematic, but they don't.

The most hypocritical thing about this "publishers have gamesites in the pocket" narrative is that when a site gets advertisment money from outside of the industry (like with mountain dew and doritos) it gets ridiculed for it as well. People don't know what they want.

 

[fvng]

no i don't. The point i was making is that they host tons of sponsored content in the form of trailers, it's how the site got big in the first place. I fail to see how a (clearly indicated) sponsored top 10 list is so much worse than a sponsored trailer, or advertisement or whatever other promotion is running constantly on that site. Now, if they pretended that it was editorial content it would be problematic, but they don't.

Looks like we agree.

Yes, it would have been far worse if they omitted the fact that they EA paid for that top ten list.

This is a meaningless drummed up controversy.

The most hypocritical thing about this "publishers have gamesites in the pocket" narrative is that when a site gets advertisment money from outside of the industry (like with mountain dew and doritos) it gets ridiculed for it as well. People don't know what they want.

Preach

 

[sublimit]

I have seen them trash games in their video reviews while their web pages were swamped with ads for that very same game. So what are you talking about?

Which ones?Examples?
Obviously there are exceptions to the rule,especially when a game is abominable,but they are just that exceptions.
The vast majority of big budget games get all favorable scores from GT.They even gave Dragon Age II a 92 score.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

LOL
Reminds me of Tingle's Bargaining gameplay,

 

[massoluk]

The most hypocritical thing about this "publishers have gamesites in the pocket" narrative is that when a site gets advertisment money from outside of the industry (like with mountain dew and doritos) it gets ridiculed for it as well. People don't know what they want.

Wha? "Outside of the industry"? Mountain Dew and Dorito were tied to Halo franchise. At least the launch promotion.

 

[Xian]

Popcorn.gif

Doritos.gif



should really be a thing.

 

[pslayer666]

imo, their reviews on GT never appeared as 'infulenced' by any way, at least thus far.


But I also see a relation between this and Shane leaving quite probably.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Meh, it's just a Dead Space item, paid for by Dead Space marketing money. It would be bad if it was a regular "Top 10 horror games" or something sponsored by Dead Space and Dead Space would come out on top.

Lots of editorial content is paid for in all kinds of markets.

 

[Xtars]

Well i think this ragetrain on EA have become a bit excessive. Sure they are not a perfect company and GameTrailers is highly questionable as a journalism source.

However I personally see gametrailers as an entartainement source and not a source of great journalism. So the way I see it EA have paid GT for doing a video of Dead Space top 10 moments it does not bother me that much because of two reasons.

1. It's just like any other ad on a page

2. It is still gametrailers staffs top 10 moments of Dead Space and not EA's top 10 moments

 

[Margalis]

1. It's just like any other ad on a page

2. It is still gametrailers staffs top 10 moments of Dead Space and not EA's top 10 moments

Is it really hard to imagine that a list produced by GT without payment from EA might include more subtle digs at DS3?

When you mix advertising and editorial the result is not editorial.

 

[A Sentient Keyboard]

You see the GameGrumps video?

I didn't. What did they do?

 

[faceless007]

no i don't. The point i was making is that they host tons of sponsored content in the form of trailers, it's how the site got big in the first place. I fail to see how a (clearly indicated) sponsored top 10 list is so much worse than a sponsored trailer, or advertisement or whatever other promotion is running constantly on that site. Now, if they pretended that it was editorial content it would be problematic, but they don't.

The difference is, as far as I can tell (I haven't watched the video and won't because I haven't played 2 yet), this video was created by GameTrailers but sponsored by EA, which heavily blurs the line between editorial and advertorial. Any respectable media outlet won't have anything to do with using their own people and resources to create an ad, it's the job of the advertising company to deliver the finished ad. So by using their own creative resources to make the video, they open up questions as to whether they are in the business of creating content for their site, or creating content for sponsors.

Again, it would be like an oil corporation paying a newspaper reporter to write a positive story about them. Even if the story he writes is factually accurate, and even if he discloses that he has a relationship with the company, anybody with a modicum of understanding of journalism should understand the ethical breach that is.

 

[patapuf]

The difference is, as far as I can tell (I haven't watched the video and won't because I haven't played 2 yet), this video was created by GameTrailers but sponsored by EA, which heavily blurs the line between editorial and advertorial. Any respectable media outlet won't have anything to do with using their own people and resources to create an ad, it's the job of the advertising company to deliver the finished ad. So by using their own creative resources to make the video, they open up questions as to whether they are in the business of creating content for their site, or creating content for sponsors.

Again, it would be like an oil corporation paying a newspaper reporter to write a positive story about them. Even if the story he writes is factually accurate, and even if he discloses that he has a relationship with the company, anybody with a modicum of understanding of journalism should understand the ethical breach that is.

maybe it's because i'm used to consume media with a critical eye but:

If a journalists writes that he has written a positive article about a company that has paid him to do it that counts as advertisment to me, and i will treat it like one. I don't see the ethical pitfalls, if anything the journalists risks his own credibility but that's not my problem.

And even then, we are talking about a top 10 list on a site that became big because it organized advertisements neatly, not journalism. Gametrailers is built on using it's own resources to make the job of advertising companies easier. There is no critical thinking required to see: this is a top 10 list about dead space, it exists to hype dead space 3 that is out next week.

I'll get outraged about game journalism again when they hide the fact that they are paid to promote the game.

 

[Alo81]

I'm not saying the review is going to be paid off, I'm not saying the review is going to be influenced. I'm saying that seeing those ads plastered over the site and these sponsored videos being created make me think that the possibility exists.

And that's enough to make me not trust and not listen to the review, no matter if it ends up being accurate or not. The appearance of impropriety (even if there is no actual impropriety) is enough.


edit: ^^ what faceless said

I understand that, but it's a little bit too paranoid. At the same time, most people who are reviewing the game got the copy for free as well as a bunch of other EA swag on the past.

Games reviewers are expected to get these things, so usually they don't affect their review scores. I say usually because I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know which are which.

I just think theres such a thing as being too cautious, and just because a site has an advertisement for a game doesn't immediately mean that it will influence their review.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

I don't see a problem. This is obviously a topically relevant ad for a game that comes out next week. Of course EA paid for it, that's how advertising works.

+1

 

[polyh3dron]

This kind of thing isn't just confined to video game journalism though. It's a practice that is becoming more and more prevalent in regular journalism too and there's a name for it, they call it an "advertorial". Just recently there was a bit of a scandal when Atlantic Magazine ran one of these for the Church of Scientology. It's made to look like an actual article when it's just a stealthy ad.

 

[Mononoke]

This kind of thing isn't just confined to video game journalism though. It's a practice that is becoming more and more prevalent in regular journalism too and there's a name for it, they call it an "advertorial". Just recently there was a bit of a scandal when Atlantic Magazine ran one of these for the Church of Scientology. It's made to look like an actual article when it's just a stealthy ad.

That's some shady stuff.

Would be interested to read more into it. I remember the good old days of payola.

 

[The Albatross]

fuck Gaf, fuck, you will just never get it.

I don't see a problem. This is obviously a topically relevant ad for a game that comes out next week. Of course EA paid for it, that's how advertising works.

Well someone does.

 

[Mononoke]

fuck Gaf, fuck, you will just never get it.

Get what, the business side of things?

 

[The Albatross]

I wish that gaming websites were are morally pure as other entertainment websites

 

[Oersted]

maybe it's because i'm used to consume media with a critical eye but:

If a journalists writes that he has written a positive article about a company that has paid him to do it that counts as advertisment to me, and i will treat it like one. I don't see the ethical pitfalls, if anything the journalists risks his own credibility but that's not my problem.

And even then, we are talking about a top 10 list on a site that became big because it organized advertisements neatly, not journalism. Gametrailers is built on using it's own resources to make the job of advertising companies easier. There is no critical thinking required to see: this is a top 10 list about dead space, it exists to hype dead space 3 that is out next week.

I'll get outraged about game journalism again when they hide the fact that they are paid to promote the game.

A journalist who writes a paid advertorial for a company ain´t a journalist. Just outsourced PR.

 

[Mononoke]

I wish that gaming websites were are morally pure as other entertainment websites

Well, regardless whether you think people are wrong or not - you have to admit, there seems to be a pretty big distrust among gamers and the journalism in this industry.

That's a problem. Even from their perspective, it's not very good for business to have people starting to question your credibility.

Then again, I'm not sure if this is just a niche group (the loud minority), and the majority of consumers don't care or have any issue.

 

[universalmind]

Guess Nintendo games will never make Top 10 again.

rightly so

 

[The Albatross]

I do agree that there is mistrust. I think we are the problem with gaming journalism, though, because we want our journalists to have gaming credibility first, journalistic credibility second. When games that we want to be good score badly, we lose our shit. When mainstream news outlets -- that actually have journalistic integrity -- cover games, we always rip them because they don't "get games" (like when the WSJ lauded the last CoD game and a 10-page thread ripping the author was so full of great lols).

The result is that the only way that gaming news outlets make money is that they have to get sponsorship from either videogame publishers, or traditional gaming advertisers like Doritos or Mountain Dew. And every time that happens we get all upity and mad and call for more journalistic integrity.

We can't have it both ways.

Also:

Instead of picking on movies, how about some other niche press areas?
Comic books?

 

[fvng]

Which ones?Examples?
Obviously there are exceptions to the rule,especially when a game is abominable,but they are just that exceptions.
The vast majority of big budget games get all favorable scores from GT.They even gave Dragon Age II a 92 score.

I've noticed it a few times, but the first time I saw it, it was with Front Mission Evolved, and there were ads for it plastered all over the website. I did a screenshot when it happened, I'll see if I can find it. It was obviously some time ago.

 

[faceless007]

If a journalists writes that he has written a positive article about a company that has paid him to do it that counts as advertisment to me, and i will treat it like one. I don't see the ethical pitfalls, if anything the journalists risks his own credibility but that's not my problem.

Er, if you readily admit it can risk a loss of credibility, then you agree with me. That's precisely the problem, and what GT did here. Whether or not it's "your problem," no journalist worth his salt would agree to such an assignment, and no legitimate newspaper would allow a reporter to take it, for exactly that reason.

There's also the fact that, though the video is marked as sponsored, it is given the veneer of being original content by GameTrailers by virtue of them creating it and marking it as an installment of their "GT Countdown" series. Again, this raises the question of whether GT is in the business of creating original content for its readers, or creating advertisements for advertisers.

And even then, we are talking about a top 10 list on a site that became big because it organized advertisements neatly, not journalism. Gametrailers is built on using it's own resources to make the job of advertising companies easier. There is no critical thinking required to see: this is a top 10 list about dead space, it exists to hype dead space 3 that is out next week.

Right, and if GT has absolutely no ambitions or claims to being anything other than a hub to post advertisements and sponsored content, then that's fine. But if they want to branch out into original editorial content that presumes to have an opinion--and it seems like they do--they would do well to convince viewers that they can be trusted to deliver such content without being influenced by marketing dollars. This video argues otherwise.

 

[Htown]

It's a fucking top 10 list about Dead Space games. How much integrity does it need?

Anything greater than zero.

Here you have a site that has enough of an editorial slant to put out reviews and game of the year lists every year, and they're putting out content after being paid by EA to do so.

If you don't see a problem with that, that's on you.