Support NeoGAF

[FStop7]

I forgot about the Arkham Asylum review kits that included personalized straight jackets.

http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/batman-arkham-asylum-review-packaging/2207147/#/3

 

[demidar]

Thing is, there really isn't alot in the giantbomb community at all. I'd say out of all the sites they have the most defenders, rational or not (in fact I probably border on irrational at times). Which I think is a rather interesting the way they could influence their audience, whether if you it's deserved or not.

A side-effect of having a personality driven website I assume.

 

[LorDjidane]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday when I went to IGN since they had one of the earlier reviews up of NFSMW. I must admit, I had trouble reading it with the scrolling ACIII ad behind it. Lawls.

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

 

[EternalGamer]

This part of Brad's post I think sums things up nicely:



Ultimately unless you're really convinced that they are outright lying I don't know what else you'd want.

I posted my response in that thread.

 

[Funky Papa]

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

dot dot dot

 

[CrunchinJelly]

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

Looks like a reputable source for videogame information.

 

[Agent Unknown]

Also, Lauren Wainwright defense force, assemble!

Just now catching up with that article. No need to read anything more from Wesley Copeland and VGI, he actually goes so far as to vehemently defend the legal action:

The general consensus of the Internet is that legal action is akin to murdering babies. So at the risk of going against what's popular, or what's the easiest to back, she took exactly the right course of action.

On the Internet, anyone can say anything about whoever they want. Unless you're in the UK, of course. Here in the UK, if you slander someone without clear and concise proof, you can get sued. In the world of games journalism, slander is our cancer. Without trust – trust that we will remain unbiased – people won't read what we write. It's that simple.

What is the worth of a writer's voice if there's no one around to hear it?

Well, I sure won 't be around to hear your voice. Seriously, the brazen crap above is exactly why we need a watchdog resource. Any website that has a staffer who praises the ability to sue others into silence is a website I want to be aware of that I need to avoid.

 

[ekim]

Did Geoff respond to all those stuff yet? Didn't he used to have an account here on gaf?

 

[Deitus]

I forgot about the Arkham Asylum review kits that included personalized straight jackets.

http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/batman-arkham-asylum-review-packaging/2207147/#/3

Ugh, shameful. It's one thing to say "we had a bunch of these promotional items in a warehouse so take it off our hands please", but this can't be seen as anything other than an appeal to the reviewer's ego.

Although, the straight jacket appears to have been made for J McElroy, and the Joystiq review was written by his brother. I don't know if that was an intentional move by Joystiq to avoid potential impropriety, an accident on the part of Eidos PR, or just a coincidental change that had nothing to do with this merchandise.

Anyway, I've never understood how sending gifts along with a review copy of a game has been considered an acceptable practice. The reviewer is tasked with assessing the quality of a piece of software, so they should not be provided with anything other than what the player can expect to receive from the retail version. Even things like review guides and the like are scummy, but that's a separate discussion. I don't see how giving swag, snacks, and collectors items along with a review copy of a game can be seen as anything other than a bribe, even if it doesn't work. And I'm sure it doesn't work 99% of the time, but that doesn't somehow make it not scummy.

 

[antitrop]

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

What a disgusting mess.

 

[Meccanical]

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

Hahaha, they ain't even trying to be subtle.

 

[papersleeves]

What a disgusting mess.

In case you didn't know, MAINTENANT DISPONIBLE!!!

 

[Deitus]

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

What the hell is this? I see something on that page not about Assassin's Creed 3.

Just now catching up with that article. No need to read anything more from Wesley Copeland and VGI, he actually goes so far as to vehemently defend the legal action:

The general consensus of the Internet is that legal action is akin to murdering babies. So at the risk of going against what's popular, or what's the easiest to back, she took exactly the right course of action.

On the Internet, anyone can say anything about whoever they want. Unless you're in the UK, of course. Here in the UK, if you slander someone without clear and concise proof, you can get sued. In the world of games journalism, slander is our cancer. Without trust – trust that we will remain unbiased – people won't read what we write. It's that simple.

What is the worth of a writer's voice if there's no one around to hear it?

Wouldn't falsely accusing someone of slander be considered slander? Also, isn't libel the correct term?

 

[antitrop]

In case you didn't know, MAINTENANT DISPONIBLE!!!

I don't even want to know what their podcast is like.

An hour and a half of the editorial team mindlessly gushing over Assassin's Creed III perhaps? Nah, where would I ever get that idea from.

 

[Zeliard]

Wouldn't falsely accusing someone of slander be considered slander? Also, isn't libel the correct term?

 

[CloakedPuppet]

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

Vive la France! XP

 

[Agent Unknown]

What the hell is this? I see something on that page not about Assassin's Creed 3.



Wouldn't falsely accusing someone of slander be considered slander? Also, isn't libel the correct term?

Uh...

Anyways, regarding Copeland's piece, never mind that there WAS "clear concise proof," just that she went and deleted it all like Nixon on a tape erasing spree.

 

[willooi]

You know what's a good combination? Dipping bread into Milo then eating it. Go ahead, give it a try.

Oh...I can confirm - that is definitely the best snack ever. Bread crusts have never tasted better than when soaked in hot Milo. Brown bread, in particular.

Been following this thread every day for the past week now, and I feel bad that, having been tempted to post here previously but not actually doing so, the one time I do make a comment is when Milo gets mentioned.

But yes, absolutely compelling thread. The findings and responses here have caused me to feel disgust, shock and disappointment, but now that several writers out there have been swayed into seeing it from the public's point of view - enough to make them come out and acknowledge the issue...there's a bit of hope brewing within me now, as well.

 

[Lancehead]

Wouldn't falsely accusing someone of slander be considered slander? Also, isn't libel the correct term?

Then on whom to put the burden of proof?

 

[papersleeves]

I don't even want to know what their podcast is like.

An hour and a half of the editorial team mindlessly gushing over Assassin's Creed III perhaps? Nah, where would I ever get that idea from.

Four guys nodding to each others for 90 minutes.

 

[Curufinwe]

Wouldn't falsely accusing someone of slander be considered slander? Also, isn't libel the correct term?

Slander is spoken defamation. That guy is an idiot.

 

[Deitus]

Uh...ok.

Anyways, regarding Wesley's piece, never mind that there WAS "clear concise proof," just that she went and deleted it all like Nixon on a tape erasing spree.

Exactly, which is why it's such juicy irony. He is calling statements slander, when they are in fact direct quotes, and therefore entirely provable (or were at the time they were made, before the aforementioned coverup). But he is accusing a writer of slander, when not only does he have no proof to support his accusation, but there is sufficient proof that he is factually incorrect, thereby committing libel himself. Also he's a "journalist" that doesn't know the difference between slander and libel.

 

[Jake Tower]

Slander is spoken defamation. That guy is an idiot.

Then what's a labial accusation?

 

[Agent Unknown]

Exactly, which is why it's such juicy irony. He is calling statements slander, when they are in fact direct quotes, and therefore entirely provable (or were at the time they were made, before the aforementioned coverup). But he is accusing a writer of slander, when not only does he have no proof to support his accusation, but there is sufficient proof that he is factually incorrect, thereby committing libel himself. Also he's a "journalist" that doesn't know the difference between slander and libel.

Yeah, I hear ya loud and clear now.

 

[Meccanical]

Then what's a labial accusation?

I could make a feminism joke about this, but I can't even find the words.

 

[Sipowicz]

i do think giant bomb gets a free pass from everyone due to the kane and lynch incident

From my perspective they're a very poor site and basically "bro gamers". Of all the outlets I've seen they have the most narrow tastes. They're very focused on the 360 and they're very focused on "big games" where "big" is defined by a select group of western publishers such as activision and microsoft

They are loathe to review handheld games and the more niche pc games. But they will jump all over an XBLA because OMG Microsoft!

On the one hand they preach integrity and do not court advertisers. On the other hand they have a seething hatred for the people who question them, they function as free PR for large publishers, their tastes are defined primarily by large western publishers and Microsoft

 

[alr1ght]

I hope this is some use

 

[lemon__fresh]

i do think giant bomb gets a free pass from everyone due to the kane and lynch incident

From my perspective they're a very poor site and basically "bro gamers". Of all the outlets I've seen they have the most narrow tastes. They're very focused on the 360 and they're very focused on "big games" where "big" is defined by a select group of western publishers such as activision and microsoft

They are loathe to review handheld games and the more niche pc games. But they will jump all over an XBLA because OMG Microsoft!

On the one hand they preach integrity and do not court advertisers. On the other hand they have a seething hatred for the people who question them, they function as free PR for large publishers, their tastes are defined primarily by large western publishers and Microsoft

I'm just gonna assume you don't visit their site very often.

http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-digital-combat-simulator-a-10c-warthog/17-5490/
Niche enough?

 

[EternalGamer]

i do think giant bomb gets a free pass from everyone due to the kane and lynch incident

From my perspective they're a very poor site and basically "bro gamers". Of all the outlets I've seen they have the most narrow tastes. They're very focused on the 360 and they're very focused on "big games" where "big" is defined by a select group of western publishers such as activision and microsoft

They are loathe to review handheld games and the more niche pc games. But they will jump all over an XBLA because OMG Microsoft!

I have a problem with the way Giant Bomb complacently responded to the issue of accepting free swag and having relationships with PR. But your characterization is just patently false. They cover all kinds of indie PC games all the time. Just in the past week they covered Lucius, Painkiller, The Giana Sisters, Hotline Miama, Cook Serve Delicious, and Farm Simulator 2013. All of those are smaller budget PC titles.

 

[Oblivion]

You know what's a good combination? Dipping bread into Milo then eating it. Go ahead, give it a try.

We don't have milo but we do have this, which is pretty bomb:

http://www.nutellausa.com/

 

[Fjordson]

i do think giant bomb gets a free pass from everyone due to the kane and lynch incident

From my perspective they're a very poor site and basically "bro gamers". Of all the outlets I've seen they have the most narrow tastes. They're very focused on the 360 and they're very focused on "big games" where "big" is defined by a select group of western publishers such as activision and microsoft

They are loathe to review handheld games and the more niche pc games. But they will jump all over an XBLA because OMG Microsoft!

On the one hand they preach integrity and do not court advertisers. On the other hand they have a seething hatred for the people who question them, they function as free PR for large publishers, their tastes are defined primarily by large western publishers and Microsoft

What a bizarre post. Especially when most of the stuff they're playing recently, including multiplatform games, are on PC.

Though I guess they're technically using Windows there. "OMG Microsoft!" it is then.

 

[Dennis]

Lets get real here for a moment.

The reason PR department are sending out AC3 flags, Arkham Asylum straightjackets and letters thanking the reviewer in advance etc. is.......because it works.

Even if all the swag and praise doesn't have much of a monetary value it does however flatter the ego of the reviewer. Makes him feel special and appreciated. Part of the industry.

An insider. A VIP.

 

[Antiwhippy]

We don't have milo but we do have this, which is pretty bomb:

http://www.nutellausa.com/

Not even remotely the same thing.

Also, milo is great, but ovaltine is better.

 

[inky]

Lets get real here for a moment.

The reason PR department are sending out AC3 flags, Arkham Asylum straightjackets and letters thanking the reviewer in advance etc. is.......because it works.

Even if all the swag and praise doesn't have much of a monetary value it does however flatter the ego of the reviewer. Makes him feel special and appreciated. Part of the industry.

An insider. A VIP.

You are just jealous of them, entitled manchild.

That's nice. Meanwhile in France:

Cool, I didn't know Star Wars was coming to AC III !

 

[remnant]

Lets get real here for a moment.

The reason PR department are sending out AC3 flags, Arkham Asylum straightjackets and letters thanking the reviewer in advance etc. is.......because it works.

Even if all the swag and praise doesn't have much of a monetary value it does however flatter the ego of the reviewer. Makes him feel special and appreciated. Part of the industry.

An insider. A VIP.

Also releasing good games don't hurt either.

 

[Kikarian]

I hope this is some use

Geoff's Avatar.

 

[Oblivion]

You know what we should do? A bunch of us should get together and create our own video games journalism website, and teach those fatcats at Eurogamer and IGN

Spoiler

and neogaf

how you get shit DONE, son.

Not even remotely the same thing.

D:

 

[conman]

Ugh, shameful. It's one thing to say "we had a bunch of these promotional items in a warehouse so take it off our hands please", but this can't be seen as anything other than an appeal to the reviewer's ego.

Although, the straight jacket appears to have been made for J McElroy, and the Joystiq review was written by his brother. I don't know if that was an intentional move by Joystiq to avoid potential impropriety, an accident on the part of Eidos PR, or just a coincidental change that had nothing to do with this merchandise.

Justin was reviews editor at the time, so he was probably the contact for all review copies (which would include all swag-laden behemoths disguised as review copies). Then, as I understand it, he sent games to specific reviewers himself for assignment. So, no, I don't think the review was passed on to Griffin for ethical reasons. Just a function of how their site is/was run. I think Richard Mitchell is reviews editor now. So he'll be getting the personalized straight jackets from here on out.

And really, people, I think this hyper-attentiveness to swag is really the wrong path to follow. Focus on the people, not the stuff. It isn't "about the money" or about "the free stuff." The far sketchier stuff are the things that are much harder to quantify: relationships with PR and developers, the "industry" culture, the career bumps into publishing and development, etc. Yes, many members of the press sell this stuff for money, but that's small potatoes compared to the other harder-to-define shared culture between journalists and those on the other side (PR, publishing execs, developers).

If we focus too much on the "free stuff," it will be really easy for journalists to laugh us off. And they won't be wrong to do so.

 

[Beelzeboss]

Lets get real here for a moment.

The reason PR department are sending out AC3 flags, Arkham Asylum straightjackets and letters thanking the reviewer in advance etc. is.......because it works.

Even if all the swag and praise doesn't have much of a monetary value it does however flatter the ego of the reviewer. Makes him feel special and appreciated. Part of the industry.

An insider. A VIP.

So what happens when the reviewer finds out every reviewer got that swag and it wasn't for them and was only for a better review score.

Surely the reviewer with his great ego couldn't handle that.

 

[Dennis]

Geoff's Avatar.

Yes this needs to be his mandated GAF avatar.

I know he has an account but he has been awfully absent in recent days.

 

[alr1ght]

Every press member with an account should use that avatar.

 

[mbmonk]

And really, people, I think this hyper-attentiveness to swag is really the wrong path to follow. Focus on the people, not the stuff. It isn't "about the money" or about "the free stuff." The far sketchier stuff are the things that are much harder to quantify: relationships with PR and developers, the "industry" culture, the career bumps into publishing and development, etc. Yes, many members of the press sell this stuff for money, but that's small potatoes compared to the other harder-to-define shared culture between journalists and those on the other side (PR, publishing execs, developers).

If we focus too much on the "free stuff," it will be really easy for journalists to laugh us off. And they won't be wrong to do so.

I would agree with this. I think there are bigger issues that affect the industry more than review swag. NDA embargoes that dictate when a review can be released based on the reviews score is particularly dirty. I think the games media is getting the brunt of the criticism when PR, publishers, and us as gamers both deserve some reflective thought and even calling out.

 

[Corto]

I don't know if this was posted yet. Sterling at Destructoid wrote a parody on the subject.

And with that he won a follower. Hilarious stuff.

 

[EternalGamer]

I would agree with this. I think there are bigger issues that effect the industry more than review swag. NDA embargoes that dictate when a review can be released based on the reviews score is particularly dirty. I think the games media is getting the brunt of the criticism when PR, publishers, and us as gamers both deserve some reflective thought and even calling out.

Maybe but the review swag is something that is in their control. They do not have to accept this shit. At the very least the PR industry would begin to get a different message. If every outlet took that kind of stance you really think Ubisoft would be sending out letters thanking them for being a "partner." Also, the less of this plastic bullshit that gets produced the better.

 

[Deitus]

Justin was reviews editor at the time, so he was probably the contact for all review copies (which would include all swag-laden behemoths disguised as review copies). Then, as I understand it, he sent games to specific reviewers himself for assignment. So, no, I don't think the review was passed on to Griffin for ethical reasons. Just a function of how their site is/was run. I think Richard Mitchell is reviews editor now. So he'll be getting the personalized straight jackets from here on out.

And really, people, I think this hyper-attentiveness to swag is really the wrong path to follow. Focus on the people, not the stuff. It isn't "about the money" or about "the free stuff." The far sketchier stuff are the things that are much harder to quantify: relationships with PR and developers, the "industry" culture, the career bumps into publishing and development, etc. Yes, many members of the press sell this stuff for money, but that's small potatoes compared to the other harder-to-define shared culture between journalists and those on the other side (PR, publishing execs, developers).

If we focus too much on the "free stuff," it will be really easy for journalists to laugh us off. And they won't be wrong to do so.

Ah, that makes sense about Justin McElroy. To me he always seems like a huge goofball, so it didn't occur to me that he might have been in charge of something.

And I agree that reviewer swag is not even close to the largest problem with gaming journalism, and it certainly shouldn't form the crux of anyone's argument on the state of journalism.

I only harped on it in my post because A) that was a particularly shameless example where there was no pretending it was anything other than it was, and B) it is an indefensible practice* in any form.

edit: * By indefensible practice I mean for the person sending the swag. There's no believable argument that it isn't an attempt to influence their review scores and/or coverage. I'm not pointing the blame at the people on the receiving end here, except to the degree that the defend the practice.

But again, there are much deeper issues that should be focused on.

 

[conman]

Maybe but the review swag is something that is in their control. They do not have to accept this shit. At the very least the PR industry would begin to get a different message. If every outlet took that kind of stance you really think Ubisoft would be sending out letters thanking them for being a "partner." Also, the less of this plastic bullshit that gets produced the better.

In my experience (4 years freelance), even small outlets just put that shit in a box or on a shelf or give it away to readers. There's so much of it, and almost all of it is utterly worthless (even when it's expensive). I don't know anyone who takes that crap home--especially if they've got a partner/spouse--unless they work from home and don't have a real office to work from. As some of the journalists here have pointed out, some of this stuff is so big and obnoxious that it actually pisses you off and has a net negative effect on your opinion of the idiot who okayed it at the publisher/PR firm.

How would you propose "not accepting it"? Shipping it back isn't an option since it would break the bank. And I really don't see an alternative to review copies. The sheer number of games that need to be reviewed in a week would be well outside of the budget of most mid-tier and small sites.

I really think swag is not the issue to focus on. It's a distraction from the real issue. I think we need to stay focused on achievable, worthwhile goals. Otherwise, journalists will think (justifiably) that we're being silly and unreasonable.

 

[SuicidalSteve]

 

[mbmonk]

I think the bigger point is: why do this at all? What purpose would this white room review serve, precisely? Or more specifically, how would we be better served by this? Does it make it easier for us to line up contexts? Are we hunting for 'fairness' or 'objectivity' in reviews, and this would somehow allow us to reach it? I personally don't think that the entire baggage of influences, swag included, invalidates someone's opinion. The point is to try and understand the context of what you're reading; it's why you want personalities in the first place, because you can try, based on experience, to frame their opinions in a way you can parse.

The key is that essentially we're arguing that external stimuli influences people. Of course it does; that's a truism. It's why advertising exists. The point they're making is: if you think that we're being influenced to a degree in which you can't trust our opinions anymore, go someplace else.

Off the top of my head you would do this "white room review" because you are reviewing the same product the public gets in the same context. The public isn't getting VIP treatment, with free personalize swag. It lets you focus on the actual product for review and cuts out all the unnecessary clutter.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by contexts in your post. What specifically are you referring to?

And I don't think most swag influences their reviews past the point of trustworthiness. I just think very low hanging fruit that can easily be cleaned up. I think the overall setup of the system and some of the mechanism that publishers have put in place severely undermine any games writer who tries to hold himself to a hire standard. The incentives structure seems, from the outside, to work against integrity and rewards 'play ball' behavior. That is the far bigger issue in my eyes.

 

[mbmonk]

Maybe but the review swag is something that is in their control. They do not have to accept this shit. At the very least the PR industry would begin to get a different message. If every outlet took that kind of stance you really think Ubisoft would be sending out letters thanking them for being a "partner." Also, the less of this plastic bullshit that gets produced the better.

I completely agree. It's low hanging fruit that can easily be handled. And it should be, but I guess some writers want to fight for their free plushies and iPhone cases .. "that don't matter anyways".

 

[EternalGamer]

In my experience (4 years freelance), even small outlets just put that shit in a box or on a shelf or give it away to readers. There's so much of it, and almost all of it is utterly worthless (even when it's expensive).

How would you propose "not accepting it"? Shipping it back isn't an option since it would break the bank. And I really don't see an alternative to review copies. The sheer number of games that need to be reviewed in a week would be well outside of the budget of most mid-tier and small sites.

I really think swag is not the issue to focus on. It's a distraction from the real issue. I think we need to stay focused on achievable, worthwhile goals. Otherwise, journalists will think (justifiably) that we're being silly and unreasonable.

I think rather specifically because it is an achievable worthwhile goal that it should be a focus. Many games media writers have overtly said themselves that it is not a necessary thing.

And it isn't even that unusual. It would be standard in most forms of media as has been discussed pretty consistently throughout this thread.How about just calling the companies and telling them "Do not send us promotional material anymore. Review copies only, please."
And if they continue to do it, yes, do not accept the packages when they are delivered.

I am open to hearing about what can and can't be done from people inside the industry. But I outright reject the idea that they have to accept all that shit.