Support NeoGAF

[semiconscious]

there's nothing wrong with metacritic...

metacritic's constructed to function as a shepherd. it's there to guide the flock. it decides for them which games are most worthy of their money. by doing this, it also not-so-subtly contributes to defining for the flock which types of games/gameplay are 'best' (& which types are not), & which levels of production values are important/vital (& which are second-rate). its mission, basically, is to quantify the concept of 'fun', utilizing the group expertise of 'professional fun authorities' (seriously )...

as a mechanism created to both sell particular products to an audience, &, at the same time, to also mold that audience, metacritic works extremely well...

 

[I'm an expert]

Omg jesus christ how can that fucking turd of a site still exist?

Don't get me started on Skyrim Ps3.. Holy shit gaming journalism at it's finest. There is hardly any mention from outlets about the broken piece of shit that it is.

Gonna mention this on every new page until hopefully Kotaku can respond as to why journalists don't try to get the real scoop on Skyrim and that kind of story instead of "Silicon Knights".

 

[HoosTrax]

I feel like I'm now in this weird position where I feel the need to defend Kotaku...

I'm personally a bit repulsed by the crass consumerism that a lot of their content seems to appeal to. But this feels akin to attacking a site that covers chopper motorcycles for doing reviews for Hooters restaurants. It's content that's relevant to their audience, just like the stupid cosplays and Japanese culture tidbits is relevant to the JRPG loving audience that forms a large part of the Kotaku readership.

 

[pa22word]

there's nothing wrong with metacritic...

Other than weighting scores so that sites like IGN, that virtually everyone acknowledges as joke nowadays, matter more on the average than other sites.

The scores should be equally distributed, imo.

 

[Jackpot]

I feel like I'm now in this weird position where I feel the need to defend Kotaku...

I'm personally a bit repulsed by the crass consumerism that a lot of their content seems to appeal to. But this feels akin to attacking a site that covers chopper motorcycles for doing reviews for Hooters restaurants. It's content that's relevant to their audience, just like the stupid cosplays and Japanese culture tidbits is relevant to the JRPG loving audience that forms a large part of the Kotaku readership.

But the point is they're using "it's not worth our time/no one would be interested/outside our jurisdiction" as excuses to avoid mentioning the current catastrofuck, whilst stuff like chinese woman in maid outfit apparently is worth posting.

 

[HoosTrax]

But the point is they're using "it's not worth our time/no one would be interested/outside our jurisdiction" as excuses to avoid mentioning the current catastrofuck, whilst stuff like chinese woman in maid outfit apparently is worth posting.

The "doing good games journalism" part was poor wording on his part. If he had instead said "you know what's important? delivering content that our audience wants", then no one would have reason to criticize, any more than people have a reason to criticize TMZ for not being Roger Ebert.

Although, I do think there's a case to be made that the word "journalism" is thrown around too lightly without regard to what it really stands for.

 

[RionaaM]

My mistrust of the gaming press has been building slowly for a very long time. I remember noticing the sharp disparity between community discussion type stuff (neogaf, etc.) and ‘games journalism’ during the launch of the 360. It seemed like no one in the games media would acknowledge how poorly the early 360s were holding up and kept saying everyone’s anecdotes didn’t prove anything, even as they piled up over the months. It was well-known amongst people on GAF and elsewhere that microsoft should’ve been held accountable for their shoddy hardware, but no one seemed willing to take them to task on it. Members of the 1up podcasts I listened to at the time continually brushed off the issue- even as their own 360s were dying. It was absurd. Eventually Microsoft essentially admitted to it way after that fact with their warranty extension program. ‘Games journalists,’ rather than questioning microsoft themselves, gathering data, and holding their feet to the fire, essentially took microsoft’s side until the very last moment, and then swept the complicity under the rug and went on with their lives.

Games criticism is intertwined with the other parts of the games media, and the uniformness of the reviews is innately suspicious. Movies with universal praise seem relatively uncommon, while in gaming, it is the standard. Real gamers have many different opinions and it shouldn’t be surprising that some people love a game like ME3 and can ignore the problems, while others will absolutely hate how the game was handled. That you only see the positive side of the two at every major media outlet is very telling, especially when you see their response to gamers’ complaints, that we’re ‘whiny and entitled.’ Bullshit. It was just an instance where we could clearly see that media outlets’ interests and gamers’ interest were not that same at all- they just happen to coincide sometimes.

The outcry you see in this thread wouldn’t be what it is without the decades of unethical behavior that has been obviously occurring in the gaming media. This has been building for a long time. Unfortunately, like others have mentioned in this thread have said, I have little hope for anything significant changing. I’ve been perfectly happy using GAF as my sole source/aggregator of gaming information for quite some time.

I think this comment deserves to be in the "highlights" section in the OP, as it sums up pretty well the problem with gaming media.

 

[Dennis]

I think this comment deserves to be in the "highlights" section in the OP, as it sums up pretty well the problem with gaming media.

Yes it is a very good example of one of the problems with the current way things are done.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

there's nothing wrong with metacritic...

metacritic's constructed to function as a shepherd. it's there to guide the flock. it decides for them which games are most worthy of their money. by doing this, it also not-so-subtly contributes to defining for the flock which types of games/gameplay are 'best' (& which types are not), & which levels of production values are important/vital (& which are second-rate). its mission, basically, is to quantify the concept of 'fun', utilizing the group expertise of 'professional fun authorities' (seriously )...

as a mechanism created to both sell particular products to an audience, &, at the same time, to also mold that audience, metacritic works extremely well...

So you think it is OK for an aggregate site to try & dictate how games are reviewed?

 

[Interfectum]

I think this comment deserves to be in the "highlights" section in the OP, as it sums up pretty well the problem with gaming media.

Yeah I missed that post. Pretty much nailed it on the 360 hardware issue and the overly positive game reviews issue.

 

[Foxtastical]

Games criticism is intertwined with the other parts of the games media, and the uniformness of the reviews is innately suspicious. Movies with universal praise seem relatively uncommon, while in gaming, it is the standard. Real gamers have many different opinions and it shouldn’t be surprising that some people love a game like ME3 and can ignore the problems, while others will absolutely hate how the game was handled. That you only see the positive side of the two at every major media outlet is very telling, especially when you see their response to gamers’ complaints, that we’re ‘whiny and entitled.’ Bullshit. It was just an instance where we could clearly see that media outlets’ interests and gamers’ interest were not that same at all- they just happen to coincide sometimes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[Lancehead]

Pretty sure semiconscious was being sarcastic with that Metacritic post.

 

[Dennis]

The games media is beholden to PR and publishers to a degree that almost makes critical investigations impossible - or just completely undesirable. Why piss of the people giving us access to the upcoming games that our readers want to hear about?

But the games media isn't quite prepared to acknowledge the depth of their dependency. And they do seem to at least somewhat enjoy the notion of being something else, and more, besides shills and microphone holders. They like being thought of as something more than just games fans with an outlet for their opinions.

This is why this is so painful to them. The world sees them more clearly for what they are and this lowers their prestige in the eyes of gamers and they don't like that. It stings.

 

[Coxy]

It's very relevant and should be brought up. Every site that reviewed this broken game - and mislead its readers that it had access to the PS3 version - are utterly reprehensible.

They sold Bethesda's knowingly broken, 0FPS release for them, and were complicit in a con that must have been illegal. (EDIT - scratch that: it "should be illegal" to knowingly sell a broken game - no idea if it is).

Sell a knowingly broken game to a misled fanbase, allowing the developer to earn millions, then showering them with GOTY awards. Yeah, Games Journalism.

This is an interesting point, False advertising is very illegal, on tv ads and such they're very careful to label what is and isnt representative of gameplay and things like that. But again gaming sites will happily post a gallery of bullshots and nothing is said except maybe "Well that's what the publishers sent us" they'll happily talk about the future DLC the publisher has told them about and people will buy games expecting to get that and if it doesnt pan out they'll just say "Well that's what the publishers told us at the time".

While it's definitely the fault of publishers and they should be taken to task for releasing brken games they cant even keep on content parity, it's definitely telling of games media too. It's essentially false advertising but since it isnt technically "advertising" there doesnt seem to be any laws about it I can find.

 

[Stuart444]

I think this comment deserves to be in the "highlights" section in the OP, as it sums up pretty well the problem with gaming media.

I missed that while going through the thread so thanks for highlighting. I wasn't even lurking GAF at the time so I didn't know about that either...

However this and the Skyrim issue with many big sites brushing it off or not acknowledging them brings up what I think is a very real issue. Surely if there is big problems with games/hardware of even the biggest companies, these 'journalists' should certainly be questioning them rather than ignoring the issue.

Stuff like these along with the whole ME3 Gamers are entitled issue (seriously, not very professional guys) and supposedly other games like DA2 like was mentioned by someone previously... it makes me wonder how these sites are still so popular.

But that brings up another issue of many games just bending over and accepting whatever publishers give them no matter how anti-consumerist it is. In the same vein, many 'followers' of these popular sites won't question and will vehemently defend them til the very end.

And this is why things won't change, why should they if gamers, readers, etc will continue to follow them anywhere.

 

[semiconscious]

So you think it is OK for an aggregate site to try & dictate how games are reviewed?

my point is that metacritic functions well. as a mechanism designed to push particular product, it succeeds. it was never intended to work on our behalf, or to our benefit ...

Pretty sure semiconscious was being sarcastic with that Metacritic post.

but... you'd have to read the whole post to know that ...

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

my point is that metacritic functions well. as a mechanism designed to push particular product, it succeeds. it was never intended to work on our behalf, or to our benefit ...

Whoops, that went straight over my head

 

[cRIPticon]

The good ones do

..but yeah, embargoes suck. Yet I guess if you are getting the game early, you gotta play by their rule of when you can release reviews. In some ways, it at least isn't having everyone just rush to be first.

Right? If the information is given out early, on a product that is not quite finished so that reporters and critics can understand what is coming and be prepared to deliver a review to their audience, then it should all be fair game. I mean, some reporters never jump to conclusions and those who discuss said information on the internet NEVER jump to conclusions, right?

What do companies vae to fear? Or, perhaps, its embargoed to allow them time co communicate and update without relative fear of being misjudged too soon? And, if you feel that embargos are bad and only result in good press shaking out of them, then I urge you to read the many, many reviews of Windows 8 where most all of the information was embargoed.

 

[RionaaM]

Pretty sure semiconscious was being sarcastic with that Metacritic post.

I think the same. He's not defending Metacritic, he's just saying its purpose is crystal clear. If you read between the lines, and take into account his use of apostrophes, the "seriously " and his last sentence, you'll realise it's actually a clever and subtle critic of the site.

I missed that while going through the thread so thanks for highlighting. I wasn't even lurking GAF at the time so I didn't know about that either...

However this and the Skyrim issue with many big sites brushing it off or not acknowledging them brings up what I think is a very real issue. Surely if there is big problems with games/hardware of even the biggest companies, these 'journalists' should certainly be questioning them rather than ignoring the issue.

Stuff like these along with the whole ME3 Gamers are entitled issue (seriously, not very professional guys) and supposedly other games like DA2 like was mentioned by someone previously... it makes me wonder how these sites are still so popular.

But that brings up another issue of many games just bending over and accepting whatever publishers give them no matter how anti-consumerist it is. In the same vein, many 'followers' of these popular sites won't question and will vehemently defend them til the very end.

And this is why things won't change, why should they if gamers, readers, etc will continue to follow them anywhere.

And funnily enough, they were all quick to criticise and destroy Duke Nukem Forever in reviews, which isn't even 1% as bad as the PS3 version of Skyrim (which I haven't played, but read about the terrible game-breaking issues). Of course DNF isn't a masterpiece at all, and doesn't hold a candle to the greatness of DN3D, but tearing it to pieces while totally ignoring the low points and ending of Mass Effect 3, for example? I don't know, nothing in the former is as bad as those final minutes in the latter, so I can't understand the double standards. I know it's just opinions, but it's kinda worrying that the whole gaming media has the same opinion on 3 different games, totally ignoring the issues on some of them.

 

[semiconscious]

I think the same. He's not defending Metacritic, he's just saying its purpose is crystal clear. If you read between the lines, and take into account his use of apostrophes, the "seriously " and his last sentence, you'll realise it's actually a clever and subtle critic of the site.

metacritic: 'it's not a bug! - it's a feature!' ...

 

[QaaQer]

I hope as much as anybody that some heads roll and things change as a result of these recent events, but come on- anybody can do evil shit, PR or otherwise.

Nobody went to jail and Hill and Knowton kept the money.

But a larger issue is the role PR firms play in society at large. Part of their arsenal is lying and manipulation and they will work for whoever pays them. Tobacco, big Pharma, Oil companies, OJ Simpson, etc.

So one ask to ask themselves, what kind of person chooses to go into that kind of business and what kind of oversight and transparency does our legal system impose on that business? How much does PR shape public discourse of things like healthcare? Wars? Politics? Financial Regulation? Is PR a good thing for society?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but the fact that a thread on a gaming forum is making me think about them is f-ing fantastic.

Other questions I've been thinking about is how much do I lie to myself about things, how easily am I manipulated?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

holy shit some of the comments from people using the title journalist have been utterly horrifying and shameful. that kotaku dude here saying "it's not always shady to be pals with publicists" is basically the last card in the pack, and the fact that people on gaf have more appropriate moral compasses than his pretty much confirms my suspicion that the gaming media is predominately comprised of naive man children who don't understand the principles of basic fucking ethics in journalism.

also I fucking love you guys.

 

[Safe Bet]

Side-Topic:

What bothers me most of all is the lack of uproar over the fact that the structure of a highly regarded game franchise has been compromised to not just advertise a product but to "push" it.

I'm going to level 2X as slow because I refuse to consume high fructose corn syrup and chemically engineered artificial flavoring?

Really?

 

[Lancehead]

Side-Topic:

What bothers me most of all is the lack of uproar over the fact that the structure of a highly regarded game franchise has been compromised to not just advertise a product but to "push" it.

I thought Doritos are an American cultural icon. Kids grow up with them. I'm not an American, so as I see it, it's an honour to Master Chief.

 

[Team Filler]

Xbox was built on mountain dew and doritos advertisement, I doubt it's going away anytime soon.

 

[ultron87]

Side-Topic:

What bothers me most of all is the lack of uproar over the fact that the structure of a highly regarded game franchise has been compromised to not just advertise a product but to "push" it.

Wait, are you suggesting that they made Halo 4's multiplayer into a more progression based system in order to have codes on Mountain Dew and Doritos that sped up said system? That seems like a pretty gigantic stretch.

 

[Team Filler]

Yeah, that seems like a big stretch even to me, at least for it to be done deliberately. CoD's perk system really resonated with a lot of people, and that's a more likely reason to include it.

 

[Safe Bet]

Wait, are you suggesting that they made Halo 4's multiplayer into a more progression based system in order to have codes on Mountain Dew and Doritos that sped up said system? That seems like a pretty gigantic stretch.

Do I think the progression system was put into place for the sole purpose of selling unrelated products?

Ofcourse not.

I'm pointing out that system has been compromised in order to sell unrelated products.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

it's not much of a stretch to believe that they deliberately designed progression in such a way that it gave them opportunities for additional revenue. the specific implementation might not have been initially discussed, or perhaps they were planning to sell booster dlc on live, but I can totally see Microsoft marketing pushing for the ability to make money from multiplayer in perpetuity.

 

[Lancehead]

it's not much of a stretch to believe that they deliberately designed progression in such a way that it gave them opportunities for additional revenue. the specific implementation might not have been initially discussed, or perhaps they were planning to sell booster dlc on live, but I can totally see Microsoft marketing pushing for the ability to make money from multiplayer in perpetuity.

I think that's a safe bet.

 

[KittenMaster]

Side-Topic:

What bothers me most of all is the lack of uproar over the fact that the structure of a highly regarded game franchise has been compromised to not just advertise a product but to "push" it.

I'm going to level 2X as slow because I refuse to consume high fructose corn syrup and chemically engineered artificial flavoring?

Really?

I haven't seen how it relates to Halo 4 gameplay, but when I first saw the Geoff Keighley pic in this thread I thought it was highly amusing how the poster prominently featured Doritos and MtnDew as the center titles of the poster while you had to look at the very bottom to even notice "Halo 4" placed on a very detached portion of the pic. Halo 4 is such a huge household name and even it wasn't immune to the incredible product placement in that pic.

 

[Team Filler]

Seems awfully risky to use an important multiplayer mechanic that's new to the franchise as incentive for RMT of sorts, especially for what is their premiere first-party franchise.

 

[ultron87]

Call of Duty has proven that both an XP progression system and that having booster codes in non-related products can be successful. So they aren't blazing new ground on that front. I'd be somewhat shocked if they went from that to directly selling boosters on the Marketplace.

Personally I'll probably buy some of the Dew because that flavor is brilliant when mixed with booze.

 

[Safe Bet]

It's the batshit insane readers who think a slice of pizza is enough to throw away a decade of track record.

horrible rhetoric used here

 

[Team Filler]

Right, but I still think it's risky. Some of that crowd might be okay with it for CoD, but then turn around and not be okay for the same thing in Halo, and provide no rational reason for the difference. Sort of like how some might freak out about MMO monthly fees, and then happily pay for Season passes and/or useless costumes and other RMT "content".

Although now that I think about it, Halo has been doing this kind of thing for some time with their map packs anyways. Well shit, that was a waste of posting.

 

[AkuMifune]

Seems awfully risky to use an important multiplayer mechanic that's new to the franchise as incentive for RMT of sorts, especially for what is their premiere first-party franchise.

It really doesn't, which is why we're at this impasse. In-game ads, microtransactions, sponsored DLC...this is the path gaming is going down and until someone crosses a line, or finds out where the line even is, they're going to push it as far as they can.

A weekend away from this thread and I'm still feeling it, sick and fed up with the groveling justifications. I just really hope enough people feel this way. We've really got to start pushing back. If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

 

[conman]

My mistrust of the gaming press has been building slowly for a very long time. I remember noticing the sharp disparity between community discussion type stuff (neogaf, etc.) and ‘games journalism’ during the launch of the 360. It seemed like no one in the games media would acknowledge how poorly the early 360s were holding up and kept saying everyone’s anecdotes didn’t prove anything, even as they piled up over the months. It was well-known amongst people on GAF and elsewhere that microsoft should’ve been held accountable for their shoddy hardware, but no one seemed willing to take them to task on it. Members of the 1up podcasts I listened to at the time continually brushed off the issue- even as their own 360s were dying. It was absurd. Eventually Microsoft essentially admitted to it way after that fact with their warranty extension program. ‘Games journalists,’ rather than questioning microsoft themselves, gathering data, and holding their feet to the fire, essentially took microsoft’s side until the very last moment, and then swept the complicity under the rug and went on with their lives.

Games criticism is intertwined with the other parts of the games media, and the uniformness of the reviews is innately suspicious. Movies with universal praise seem relatively uncommon, while in gaming, it is the standard. Real gamers have many different opinions and it shouldn’t be surprising that some people love a game like ME3 and can ignore the problems, while others will absolutely hate how the game was handled. That you only see the positive side of the two at every major media outlet is very telling, especially when you see their response to gamers’ complaints, that we’re ‘whiny and entitled.’ Bullshit. It was just an instance where we could clearly see that media outlets’ interests and gamers’ interest were not that same at all- they just happen to coincide sometimes.

The outcry you see in this thread wouldn’t be what it is without the decades of unethical behavior that has been obviously occurring in the gaming media. This has been building for a long time. Unfortunately, like others have mentioned in this thread have said, I have little hope for anything significant changing. I’ve been perfectly happy using GAF as my sole source/aggregator of gaming information for quite some time.

Excellent. Rarely can I say that a thread on a forum has been responsible for helping me cultivate a genuine opinion. It's posts like this that make this whole mess worthwhile. Thanks for that.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I think that's a safe bet.

nice

 

[mbmonk]

The gaming media wants to take freebees, special access, benefits from PR and publisher's yet try to convince the gaming public that they still have their integrity fully intact despite putting it in jeopardy with every act they claim has 'no effect on them'. It's funny how they extol the value they place on their integrity, yet they constantly put it in compromising positions. How much do they really value it would seem like a logical question in light of their actions.

EDIT: Reduced for brevity.

The context of that was someone showing up and going "really? you're doing this thing and not that UK-centric thing so you're bad journalists," followed by Totilo going "this is a thing that I believe is relevant, and I think we've done some really awesome work; covering Eurogamer's drama isn't really relevant to us," yes? Doesn't seem particularly offensive to me.

Ultimately, people seem to be demanding that EVERYONE suddenly reveal all this rampant corruption that supposedly exists, and, judging by some comments I've read in this thread, it appears that this corruption might be very Eurocentric (the GMAs are, yes?), and thus something that the American sites don't really have that much to say about.

My understanding of the situation is that the audience won't be satisfied until they hear all this nice, juicy dirt about how bad games journalism is, but the American guys apparently aren't close enough to the situation to have much dirt to share. So... the audiences, who believe this is some sort of global pandemic where LITERALLY EVERYONE IS GUILTY PROBABLY, is picking on the American sites for going about their normal behavior, and the American sites are like "sorry, there's not really much for us to say, guys."

I used to write about comics. Maybe that grants me a more sympathetic perspective? It feels like people are being bitchy for no really good reason.

I don't want to take your comments out of context so feel free to correct me, but the reason many gamers are requesting for US media outlets to report and weigh in on this issue is because the ethical issues that are in play in the UK are also in play in the US. Getting free, early copies of game, review NDA's that base review publishing time on the reviewer's scores, etc. are issues that face the US reviewers as well.

As you can see by some of the US games media weighing in that it has been very revealing about where they stand ethically on these issues. I think it has been very enlightening and beneficial to the gamers who are paying attention.

So that would be my argument as to why gamers want US media to report on the issue and weigh in.

 

[Safe Bet]

Also...

Does anyone really believe publishers hire game writers to be pr reps and community managers based on education, training, and experience within the field?

No...

Publishers hire them on order to access and manipulate their already established personal networks within the gaming press.

 

[EternalGamer]

Do I think the progression system was put into place for the sole purpose of selling unrelated products?

Ofcourse not.

I'm pointing out that system has been compromised in order to sell unrelated products.

Whether or not Call of Duty set the precident, I really don't see how that makes it more acceptable, either.

I mean they designed this marketing system so that people who this crappy junkfood get an advantage. You might as well just sell the exp boosters outright at that point because it's just as crappy of a thing to do to your player base.

 

[Ikael]

As a person that have been a videogame journalist for some years writting in a now sizeable website, I am currently making a bi-weekly videogame podcast, and that have also worked as a PPRR (in other non related areas, mind you) here are some random thoughts on the subject:

- As someone acutely pointed out, the whole "sameness" between reviews is suspicious because well, it is not normal.

Different people have different tastes, and the game that to some person is genious, to another one is unplayable. Thing is, there is a huge hivemind - like mentality among reviewers that it is fueled by... the audience. No, not videogame companies: readers. Try giving a bad review to a flagship title, a stablished franchise or a media darling and see the tsunami-sized shitstorm coming your way. Accusations of being a "hater", "xboxer/sonier/nintendite", "sellout" or "elitist" will hit you forth and back and most importantly, rather than mark you as an independent writter or give presige to your site, most times it creates the very opposing effect: visits are cheap, but devoted readers are valuable and (easy) to loose out to a hissy fit (Gamespot VS Zelda anyone?).

- A big part of PPRR consist in building good relationships with the press, but it is always up to the writter to fall for it or not

The whole "journos are bribed" is an overreaction towards a very common practice in almost every field. PPRR consist, in essence, in rubbing the media (and public) shoulders. You can do it so by giving exclusive information, merchandaising, whatever. As PPRR I do not expect to "buy" anything, much less a journalist. You "trow in" favours, hoping that something sticks. The ball is always in the court of the journalist: being able to cut off any kind of emotional bond that you have with the object of your critic is an unvaluable quality for any journalist, and one necessary in order to make a decent critic. There is no dylemma between being having integrity or career, you can have both, and it always up to you to withold the first. I have recieved my fair share of merchandaising goodies, yet it did not prevent me to pan to hell and back whichever game I deemed unworthy, or put it a low score, even if by putting "human faces" to the team behind the games did refrain me from putting vitrol inside my critic, which is, afterall, one of the PPRR's main fuctions (to prevent catastrophes from happening, rather than to actively pursuit "hits").

- Some developers can take constructive criticism, other ones don't.

And by "not taking constructive criticism" I mean "they take it personally, will not talk to you, will not tell you "hi" and "will activelly barren you from any event". As I said before, the level of, hum "passion", if not outright fanatism that videogames elicit is something that permeates the whole "videogame culture", developers included. Also, you should add to that the fact that small review sites are extremely dependant of freebies in order to conduct critic with a regular schedule. Movie ticket costs 9 euros, while a blockbuster game can add up to 60 euros. Do the math, is simple. If a videogame studio want to shit on your videogame journalist career, boy, it does have the means to do it so, it is a very asymetric relationship.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Also...

Does anyone really believe publishers hire game writers to be pr reps and community managers based on skill and experience alone?

Ofcourse not.

Publishers hire them on order to access and manipulate their already established personal networks within the gaming press.

and to leverage the trust they've built up amongst gamers. if the audience already listens to you, then you're the perfect shill.

 

[EternalGamer]

Also...

Does anyone really believe publishers hire game writers to be pr reps and community managers based on education, training, and experience within the field?

No...

Publishers hire them on order to access and manipulate their already established personal networks within the gaming press.

Yeah this is something I started realizing when all the former 1up people started getting jobs as "community managers" at various game companies. I am not saying that they may not also be qualified, but it's a nice perk for the publisher that those people already have a lot of established friends in the press.

 

[Ledsen]

Also...

Does anyone really believe publishers hire game writers to be pr reps and community managers based on education, training, and experience within the field?

No...

Publishers hire them on order to access and manipulate their already established personal networks within the gaming press.

I think those people also realize that. It's part of the package.

 

[EternalGamer]

and to leverage the trust they've built up amongst gamers. if the audience already listens to you, then you're the perfect shill.

That's either a really mean or a really nice thing you are saying about Jeff Green. Oh well, at least he has job security now.

 

[Team Filler]

Even Dragons gotta eat!

Spoiler

I would trust Jeff Green with my unborn children.

 

[Safe Bet]

You might as wellT sell the exp boosters outright at that point because it's just as crappy of a thing to do to your player base.

It would be a great subject for a game writer to... OH SNAP! DID YOU NOTICE THERE'S A TOMAHAWK IN THE NEW ASSASSINS CREED!?!?!

 

[Kinyou]

it's not much of a stretch to believe that they deliberately designed progression in such a way that it gave them opportunities for additional revenue. the specific implementation might not have been initially discussed, or perhaps they were planning to sell booster dlc on live, but I can totally see Microsoft marketing pushing for the ability to make money from multiplayer in perpetuity.

That's one of those things you can just never know for sure.

But that the possibility exists is already bad enough.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

That's either a really mean or a really nice thing you are saying about Jeff Green. Oh well, at least he has job security now.

>.>

sorry jeff! definitely a nice thing, how the person (ab)uses the trust is up to them