Oddvintagechap
Member
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm curious about who is going to take these jokes seriously.
I'm curious about who is going to take these jokes seriously.
They don't get straight up bribes.
But we'd be kidding ourselves to think that Sony (Or Xbox for that matter) doesn't pressure reviewers into giving their games better scores.
Source?
I was about to not add the clickbait tag.. but then I wondered about all those Xbox’s trolls that appear in my twitterfeed.I'm curious about who is going to take these jokes seriously.
I meeaaannn I know they are messing around online, but wouldn’t past me these reviewers get something in return.
No one wants to be the odd one out.I meeaaannn I know they are messing around online, but wouldn’t past me these reviewers get something in return.
Why pay when the fear of fanboys rage are enough to protect your big blockbuster games.
Specially when the game is either a beloved nostalgic IP or a narrative driven drama with ultrarealistic depiction of violence and human suffering...
Schreier is writing up a piece as we speak!I'm curious about who is going to take these jokes seriously.
I'm curious about who is going to take these jokes seriously.
They don't get straight up bribes.
But we'd be kidding ourselves to think that Sony (Or Xbox for that matter) doesn't pressure reviewers into giving their games better scores.
They bring them in a back alley and shake ‘em down.
What about the Nintendo Review Curve?
They don't get straight up bribes.
But we'd be kidding ourselves to think that Sony (Or Xbox for that matter) doesn't pressure reviewers into giving their games better scores.
Not worth it....
If a PS game reviews badly: "Sony sucks. I knew it hahaah"
If a PS game reviews greatly: "This is bullshit! Sony studios staff are hacks! With that amount of money that Sony tossed at them, anyone could make it!"
If a PS game is a GOTY: "Fuck this! They paid the reviewers or they are afraid of the fanboy mobs! Fuck Sony!!!!11111111!! Next gen Sony is doomed!"
Rinse and repeat.... Everytime.
8.8 - TV Tropes
8.8 can refer to: Complaining About People Not Liking the Show: If you don't like what I like, you're wrong. Critical Dissonance: The audience and critics disagree with each other about the quality of a work. Four-Point Scale: When reviewers …tvtropes.org
Recent case: IGN with FFVIIr
I've worked in the industry long enough and reviewed many games long enough. The only real "pay" you get from the devs/publishers is simply a backlink to your review/website which boosts your SEO and ranks you higher in google and which in return gives you more traffic and more $$$ over the long term...
The only real way you can make money directly from publishers is when you put up ad banners of their games on your website, but for that to even happen you need an absurd amount of high viewership and metric, because the publishers are willing only to pay big $$$ to those who have high viewership and recognized name. It's basically a sponsor.
lol im about to play it, I had it since day 1. Zero interest. Fuck ittt.It's not a Sony or PS thing, it's a "big hyped game" thing.
Remember when tons of people (here on Gaf too) had a mental breakdown when Jim Sterling gave Breath of the Wild a 7?. I don't particularly like the dude but the reviews seemed pretty fair IMO
But we'd be kidding ourselves to think that Sony (Or Xbox for that matter) doesn't pressure reviewers into giving their games better scores.
It's not a Sony issue, it's a AAA issue. Sony happens to make the most premium AAA games.
]
That's exactly it. They are paid off by the fact that they relay on there business model from these company's.
Has there even been any tangible proof of this?.
With all the leaks we get in the gaming industry you'd think that at this point we'd at least have some leaked emails or documents if bribes or other forms of pressure were commonplace.
It's not a Sony or PS thing, it's a "big hyped game" thing.
Remember when tons of people (here on Gaf too) had a mental breakdown when Jim Sterling gave Breath of the Wild a 7?. I don't particularly like the dude but the reviews seemed pretty fair IMO
You do realize someone else could say the same thing about Nintendo and Microsoft, right?]
That's exactly it. They are paid off by the fact that they relay on there business model from these company's.
So why don't they give the "paid off curve" for all games from the big publishers?
You do realize someone else could say the same thing about Nintendo and Microsoft, right?
That's a pretty extreme interpretation, but it has happened before so it's not impossible.Yes it happens EVERYWHERE.
The only way to get reviews going is when reviewers buy there own copy's do not relay on the income for reviewing it. but then even if its negative at this point the review u will see freaking game company's push youtube strikes on the video and try to take the channel down because "they did not allow them to show content of there game".
Get in line reviewer.
Has there even been any tangible proof of this?.
With all the leaks we get in the gaming industry you'd think that at this point we'd at least have some leaked emails or documents if bribes or other forms of pressure were commonplace.
The only way to get reviews going is when reviewers buy there own copy's do not relay on the income for reviewing it...
And in both cases, unless you own the company that hosts the site, you do not participate in the profit generated from that success. I've never heard of a writer getting a "bonus" or some sort of profit share or dividend for a successful review. You'll still get the same paychek you always got on your salaried job, or you'll still get the same flatrate for per-word or per-article you get for the content as negotiated in the Statement of Work contract, and that's what you're taking home whether the review goes gangbusters or gets buried under the news of the day.
(Even long-term, jouralists/editorial contributors don't even get paid in relation to their performance numbers really, which I still had in my head at first when I was started doing some writing for the industry long ago and had seen movies about superstar newspapermen and seen "celebrity" journalists like Roger Ebert on TV, but it starts to make sense how insanely competitive and vicious the atmosphere would be in the office if writers got like a backend percentage. Yes, a writer can renegotiate their contract for performance, and some staff in an office will make more money than others, but usually that's about retention or volume of output or even "star power", just generally your proven quality of work and value to the company as an employee. You can't go into like the GameSpot office and plop down your traffic portfolio saying, "You're going to want to hire me for the big bucks, because in my last job, it was ME who wrote the review for The Last of Us and Halo, so yeah, I'm a pretty big freaking deal...")
But we'd be kidding ourselves to think that Sony (Or Xbox for that matter) doesn't pressure reviewers into giving their games better scores.
I think we can all name a few (former) gaffers.I'm curious about who is going to take these jokes seriously.
The fact that we review a game and get a free copy is the deal itself, we get free shit and free advertising and so do they, they pay via the copy really.
Not only that, but there's a point Super Bunnyhop made about MGS V that never left my mind. The reviewers had 40 hours to complete the game in a publisher event, everyone who played MGS V knows that's bullshit because the game pretty much lasts twice as much. So even if you don't think reviewers get directly payed to give the games good scores (and they don't) or that they feel pressured to give it a good score (which is probably a thing, sadly, but not to any irreparable degree), there's still a question about the condition they play these games with deadlines and shit. AND there's also the question about how proficient they are at the games.