Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like many of us, I would like Geoff's take on this whole thing. Not that I really care for him, but he's the dude sitting right next to doritos and mountain dew after all. Considering no major gaming website but a select few is willing to cover the story, maybe he could do like Jim Sterling and express himself out of his territory, on a blog as a guest or something.

But I guess doing so would be a lose-lose situation for him. After all, will all of this be forgotten a week from now? Maybe a month? Peoples are quick to forgive and ignore. Will this turn into a "no shit sherlock/shocking water is wet/deal with it" subject in the long run?

I sure hope not but then again gaming journalism and its audience.
 
The issue is transparency.

When people donate literally thousands of dollars it's not asking too much to know where that money is going.

In the end the issue is not so much what they did or did not do with it, the issue is that Arthur and pals have the reputation they have because of actions they took, not because of some completely random hate-on.
But they were completely honest about using the money for a gaming PC. How is that not being transparent?
 
Like many of us, I would like Geoff's take on this whole thing. Not that I really care for him, but he's the dude sitting right next to doritos and mountain dew after all. Considering no major gaming website but a select few is willing to cover the story, maybe he could do like Jim Sterling and express himself out of his territory, on a blog as a guest or something.

But I guess doing so would be a lose-lose situation for him. After all, will all of this be forgotten a week from now? Maybe a month? Peoples are quick to forgive and ignore. Will this turn into a "no shit sherlock/shocking water is wet/deal with it" subject in the long run?

I sure hope not but then again gaming journalism and its audience.
I hope this whole debacle might make those who write, review, critic, blog or even promote games make them take not only a long look at there own integrity but that of there peers. Sadly I highly doubt this is going to happen as I, like you, feel the mainstay of there readership and overall the publishers target audience couldn't careless about what goes on just as long as they get to hear about games.

Just look at the outrage on sites like IGN when they give a low scoring review, MetaCritic being even worse. Are people really expecting every game to be 9 out of 10 now? Whats the point of a grading scale that has 5, 10, christ even 100 levels if you are only going to use less than a quarter of it.
 
This would be a question for Brian, not me.
Can you get Brain to answer this question for us please? So far almost everyone from a big website, who posted here said "It's not my place to write about it on our website". I just want a clear cut answer on why hasn't this news been reported. And I hope we don't get more "Readers aren't interested in this" or "We are not journalists".

I want someone to give me a convincing answer. I am open to accept the fact that there might be other reasonable reasons/factors why this issue isn't being covered in your, or any, major gaming website other than the fear of creating PR tension, which is not wanted for your sites.
 
As a consumer of media, I don't feel that those providing my media respect my needs. There seems to be more respect for PR than those they serve.

It's all very pathetic and the entire gaming media industry should be ashamed of themselves. Of course they're not though, they are laughing at their consumers on twitter with their PR buddies. Fucking pathetic.
 
Some good discussion, but some really poor responses to Schreirer.

I should also note the idea that audience drives that kind of content doesn't really do much to make me feel better about much of anything.

One of my most profound fear is that there really are millions of gamers out there all pumped to go get Mountain Dew and Dorritos for extra Halo XP; I fear that this is mainstream gaming audience and its interests.

Which probably explains why my favorite game related content these days is done by people outside of game media like Gamers with Jobs and Idle Thumbs because they don't have to cater to the Mountain Dew Doritos crowd.
I'm not willing to believe "audience driving content" is as simple or as one-way. Just on the mainstream side of things, there are three major players - gamers, press, publisher marketing - that interact with each other on different levels that drives press content. Take for example Fallout 3. The target audience for that was quite different from the core fanbase of Fallout 1 and 2. Who drove the content in the case of that game? Did the audience drive the content or the enthusiasm of this new audience was content-driven?

Having said that, I think there's a glaring lack of press-driven content. You'd see some interesting articles, opinions pieces from time to time (one would argue even most of these are tailored for their audience), but compared to audience or publisher-driven content, that's a minority. Maybe that's the nature of the industry, but I sure wish it would change.
 
Can you get Brain to answer this question for us please? So far almost everyone from a big website, who posted here said "It's not my place to write about it on our website". I just want a clear cut answer on why hasn't this news been reported. And I hope we don't get more "Readers aren't interested in this" or "We are not journalists".

I want someone to give me a convincing answer. I am open to accept the fact that there might be other reasonable reasons/factors why this issue isn't being covered in your, or any, major gaming website other than the fear of creating PR tension, which is not wanted for your sites.
No need to be sarcastic.
 
I'm lttp on this but fuck me sideways.

Square Enix freelancer doing Squareenix reviews ? That alone speaks a lot, add potential lawsuit and You don't need to look anymore.

As of this debate about web budget/game adds this why standards are important. When all sites are doing their work good (meaning no corrupcion) publishers simply can't buy reviews by add money and they pay either way because they want adds.
But when most of sites are corrupted there is no status quo anymore and trying to be truthfull will hurt you site (no review coppies, lack of invitations to closed shows, no previews) meaning you can't do your job.

Also readers are also at fault here, because when the shit hits the fan most of them comment on inside forums like neogaf but not in public. Oh how shitty practic andmore like that. People should fucking stalk twitter accounts, facebook, post on their websites (sides involved), create mames and do everithing to show llier naked.

It's like going to shop who ripped of you on their "promotion" and telling people all about their promotion. It's internet era and you don't even need to come out of your house to protest this shit.


Hmm kickstarter for gaming site ? Idle thumbs got funded so why not a proper gaming site ?
 
It would be lovely to have some sort of Unified Code of Ethics, but that's not going to happen, and it's not really my place to tell colleagues and competitors what to do.

As for Kotaku covering this, I can't speak for the site or anyone else on it, but I can say that I'm personally just more interested in spending my time writing about other things. I don't really see it as my place to serve as an ombudsman or watchdog for other members of the press, and I'm sorry if that's disappointing to you. I'm much more interested -- and I think my readers are much more interested -- in games, the people who make them, and the stories surrounding them. And also JRPGs. Lots of JRPGs.
...and this is one of the main reasons so many of us left Kotaku. You guys really don't seem to know your audience, so now you've got spambots posting about how people make thousands of dollars per month in your comment sections instead. :)

I'd also suggest that "the stories surrounding them" include, well, the press.
 
...and this is one of the main reasons so many of us left Kotaku. You guys really don't seem to know your audience, so now you've got spambots posting about how people make thousands of dollars per month in your comment sections instead. :)

I'd also suggest that "the stories surrounding them" include, well, the press.
Especially if gaming press score is one that creates metacritic score which is one of factors how dev studios are paid apperently (obsidian case).
 
I'd give my attention and clicks to any games press website, even Polygon, that stops acting like a collective of tools and actually reports on this matter, seeing as it's super relevant to their industry, and of interest to their readers (which this threadnaught proves).

Also: PR people are mostly doing what they are paid to do, and I find it hard to criticize them for doing it so well. When the games enthusiast press participate in these disgusting and willfully ignorant circle-jerks of denial and defensiveness, on the other hand, they are collectively destroying any credibility built by those that work so hard to do their job well.
 
Some good discussion, but some really poor responses to Schreirer.



I'm not willing to believe "audience driving content" is as simple or as one-way. Just on the mainstream side of things, there are three major players - gamers, press, publisher marketing - that interact with each other on different levels that drives press content. Take for example Fallout 3. The target audience for that was quite different from the core fanbase of Fallout 1 and 2. Who drove the content in the case of that game? Did the audience drive the content or the enthusiasm of this new audience was content-driven?

Having said that, I think there's a glaring lack of press-driven content. You'd see some interesting articles, opinions pieces from time to time (one would argue even most of these are tailored for their audience), but compared to audience or publisher-driven content, that's a minority. Maybe that's the nature of the industry, but I sure wish it would change.
Some very good points. I know it has been mentioned about transparency but I feel the waters are being muddied between what is the writers choice or that of their employers choice of content. How freely are writers and bloggers allowed to author their content? Are they under guidance on what articles are ok and what is a step to far? Are they allowed freedom to step outside what would be considered the employers audience and where their advertising is aimed? Schreirer did touch on he's never been told no on what he's written about but as pointed out kotaku have hardly strayed from what they cover.

I highly doubt we will ever see any transparency as this is more on a business level and it's clearly not what the vast majority of people would visit or read a gaming publication for. From my own experience I'm sure there are a lot of management level discussion regards to topics than can be covered and lot of analytical data presented about what their audience wants.

As long as the model of news, preview, review exists for most gaming media you're hardly going to see them biting the hand that feeds them. In an age when advertising dictates the financing of gaming media and getting a leg up on the competition with early access and first look exclusives that can only come directly from the publisher to fall behind can be fatal.

I don't know what people are expecting from gaming media? Are people wanting to see some hard cutting industry critique? Exposé features? Insiders drawing back the curtain against their paymasters? Sadly as long as adverts keep their site going and those adverts are paid for by publishers this will never get off the ground. What with the death of traditional publishing and print media and the move to new media the vast majority of finance has moved from subscription to ad revenue.

I'd like to read about what really goes on behind the scenes and not just some glossed up PR spiel but there's hardly an environment for developers to come forward without ending up unemployed. These stories do crop up from time to time but usually way after the damage has done. I would like to see a Gaming Press that would support the people who make and enjoy games and that publishers and PR's would fear for what they'd write about them but until they gain independence from them again it's going to take some very brave people.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
The drive-by trolling seen in this thread for the last few pages is very annoying to read.

And calling Arthur Gies bad at his job, when his job is reviews editor while not citing a number of reviews that were poorly edited is dumb and not the topic of discussion.

But you have to understand something else, and maybe GAF loses sight of this. The press I deal with 99 percent of the time is not the press caught up in this particular row, for good or ill. I don't know anyone from eurogamer, for example. Games media tends to be geographically insular. So when people talk about press defending the shadier shit that's happened in this situation over the last week, I personally haven't seen any of that.
There are two basic issues in this thread that people have a problem with. First the likes of the PS3 hash-tag giveaway that seems to be quite rare.
I do remember when Shane Satterfield of GT.com told stories about raffles being done where the winner would get a 60" LCD TV at press events.
(This was said on Invisible Walls the last time the topic of ethics came up. I believe after the 360 Slim thing at E3.)

And then there is the more subtle problem with publisher press and enthusiast press being friendly and the influence this has on everything.

To give an example of the second issue would be the one-week (or two if you decided to take a vacation on Ubi's dime) of inviting enthusiast press to Venice to show them how well rendered Assassin's Creed 2 was.
Or the shooting range with SWAT gear that Shawn talked about once on GFW Radio. Or the various press kits that some writers like a lot and others don't give a crap about.

There is no conspiracy, there is only human psychology. And to claim that one is exempt of this is foolish.
As Jeff Green has pointed out you have to play ball and I get that.

To repeat what I said earlier:
At the moment, Polygon should be given the benefit of the doubt and commended for their ethics code and Arthur as the reviews editor should continue to disclose what went into a review. Even though Polygon's slogan while building their new website of "the new games journalism" was mocked. In this particular instance I think they should be respected at this early stage of their website. Of course nobody knows what happens when push comes to shove but for now it's a good choice.

And please include the trips/perks/random things on the articles itself. While disclosing it on twitter is better than not disclosing it, as so many other outlets decide to do, having it all in the spot where it matters would be great.
 
Personally, I've never really seen the need for the middle man in the first place, but that's probably because I don't care for opinion pieces for the most part (which means reviews are meaningless to me). In fact, if the PR department at any given publisher determines when we'll be able to see certain content, what purpose does the press really serve? Of course, having said that, I do realize that a good portion of the consumer base, GAF definitely included, has trouble looking at unfinished content and taking it for what it is, so they do kind of need that filter of the various gaming outlets in place to put things in perspective for them. Announcements, screenshots, and video are the only things that I expect out of the various news outlets, so I view them more as a collection of various PR releases, which I don't necessarily view as a bad thing. Hell, that's all I typically care about which is why I've reduced where I get my gaming news to just GAF/All Games Beta.

I guess I just can't see what role 'integrity' plays for the very large portion of news consumers such as myself, but, again, that is only because I don't see why anyone would ever care about a review for any entertainment medium. And I do also understand that this is entirely what the thread is about, but I did want to share my views of this mysterious readerbase who wouldn't really give a damn about the 'insidious' relationships between publisher and press. If anything, the only related topic that would perhaps require some investigation would be conceptual/prototyping behind the scenes work, but that is typically controlled by PR as well.
 
I've been avoiding most of this conversation because talking about games and the people behind them is more interesting than talking about press
jschreier said:
I can say that I'm personally just more interested in spending my time writing about other things.
jschreier said:
We don't often cover media issues like this.
Really? Because here's an entire section on your own website dedicated to writing about media issues surrounding gaming coverage, you LYING HYPOCRITE.

http://jasonschreier.com/category/media/

and a few more of your "tasteful" jokes about the current issue:

jschreier said:
@BarackObama do you think it's ok for game journalists to advertise games as part of contests to win free PS3s get back to me asap please
jschreier said:
@KCoxDC @samusclone @BooDooPerson You guys do know that it's unethical to review games unless you've had a lobotomy, right?
Still claim you hate writing about this issue?
 
Though I can’t say I’ve loved every story that Kotaku has posted over the years, that didn’t stop me from wanting to be join the team — in fact, it’s part of why I wanted to join the team. Kotaku is a forum for a diverse variety of unique voices, and much of its success has drawn from its willingness to publish things that other gaming sites wouldn’t necessarily publish. Sometimes it’s progressive. Sometimes it’s radical. And sometimes, it will publish stories I don’t like or agree with. That’s okay. That’s part of the fun.
http://jasonschreier.com/2012/02/02/enter-kotaku/#more-336

I wonder what changed between then and now..
 
aegies

It's cute you're trying to say money from MS, because it's a different division than xbox, has no influence on your site or the content but you said:



Which means they told you what you could do with that money.

And lo and behold Major Nelson starts tweeting about polygon and your great Halo 4 content... Pretty sure his twitter is a MS PR mouthpiece.

And you can't understand why people would be suspicious?
QFT

aegies said:
The funny thing is, with regards to this thread topic, I'm in the same camp as GAF. I think the shit that went down was gross, and that a great deal of the ass-covering is shameful........Going negative about other sites is toxic, and most readers don't like that kind of content.
aegies said:
I can't speak for Colin either, because I only know him a little. He's a super nice guy, and I've never seen anything to suggest the kind of behavior he's being accused of.
aegies said:
So when people talk about press defending the shadier shit that's happened in this situation over the last week, I personally haven't seen any of that.
This head-in-the-sand mentality is getting rather tiring. You feel strongly enough to call it gross and shameful but then revert back to the old "no one's interested in this story". You've never seen a single PR pack or people leaping at going on a PR-funded trip? It's all myths and legends?

aegies said:
You acknowledge that there's a tense relationship, but I don't see anyone at GAF that's particularly influential or with the ability to guide conversation making an effort on this end to make any sort of peace.
Right, it's all our fault we won't gloss over your shady dealings or the ridiculously closed-ranks between gaming outlet. Keep playing that persecution card.

aegies said:
Meanwhile, if we were to come here and point out when we are absolutely positive that someone is a PR plant or a schill for a game, we'd get banned.
This ... this is kind of disingenuous.
No, that's disingenuous.
 
Today's newspaper in Belgium reminded me how different regular journalism is from gaming journalism. A reporter that wrote a critical book about the royal palace has been suspended from his job at a news station for a month.
 
I'd give my attention and clicks to any games press website, even Polygon, that stops acting like a collective of tools and actually reports on this matter, seeing as it's super relevant to their industry, and of interest to their readers (which this threadnaught proves).

Also: PR people are mostly doing what they are paid to do, and I find it hard to criticize them for doing it so well. When the games enthusiast press participate in these disgusting and willfully ignorant circle-jerks of denial and defensiveness, on the other hand, they are collectively destroying any credibility built by those that work so hard to do their job well.
You know the Nazis also got paid for their job...
 
This ... this is kind of disingenuous. GAF is hostile to press. Or at least, a very, very, very, very vocal contingent of GAF is hostile to the press. Asking a group of people that GAF regularly shits on and makes personal attacks against to talk to GAF members as normal human beings is actually asking kind of a lot. You might not have said anything negative, ever. Most of the posters here haven't. But there's a contingent that sets GAF's tone as perceived by the outside, and that tone is, like I said, hostile.

You acknowledge that there's a tense relationship, but I don't see anyone at GAF that's particularly influential or with the ability to guide conversation making an effort on this end to make any sort of peace. Even those of us who are posters here suffer some pretty hateful personal shit at the hands of other members, but it's totally fine, because, you know, whatever. We're press. So we deserve to be called giant pieces of shit. Meanwhile, if we were to come here and point out when we are absolutely positive that someone is a PR plant or a schill for a game, we'd get banned.

That kind of behavior, which I've watched get more hysterical over the last five years, has made GAF a thing that most press avoid, and tell other members of the press to avoid, instead of engaging with the forum the way they used to. I don't think I should automatically have your respect because I get paid to write about games, but some decency from people here as a human being would be a good start. And I don't see that very often.

The funny thing is, with regards to this thread topic, I'm in the same camp as GAF. I think the shit that went down was gross, and that a great deal of the ass-covering is shameful.

Covering this story for most outlets is writing about the competition, which is a really difficult thing to navigate. Are you being too negative? Is it because it's to your competitive advantage to make another site look bad? Can you be a trustworthy source on another site? What if your report is wrong? Like, completely, 100 percent wrong? What are we actually exposing? This isn't dateline. We're not taking down a major corporation that's dumping chemicals into the river.

Going negative about other sites is toxic, and most readers don't like that kind of content. It's lose lose. None of which stopped me from going on an extended twitter tirade about it, which I still don't know if I should have done, because it's more complicated than "write the story idiot."
You've just done a Dyack, and fallen into thinking GAF is either a corporation, or a united group. It is not. It's a message board.
 
I can't help but think something akin to the UK periodical Private Eye would be of great benefit - satirical and mocking in style, yes, but reporting on the shocking practices of manstream journalists with alarming efficiency, all reported anonymous informants. Perhaps an independent site could be set up, which guarantees confidentiality for those who wish to point out flaws in integrity, potential conflicts of interest, or nepotism, from their fellow critics (assuming any wish to even do that simple level of internal regulation), or even post details of PR perks and gifts.

Also inspired from that confessions thread on here, whereby any 'reports' would go through an additional level of posting, to add an extra safeguard for anonymity.

Edit: I am talking about the 'Streets of Shame' section, just to clarify. ;)
 
I can't help but think something akin to the UK periodical Private Eye would be of great benefit - satirical and mocking in style, yes, but reporting on the shocking practices of manstream journalists with alarming efficiency, but that requires anonymous informants. Perhaps an independent site could be set up, which guarantees confidentiality for those who wish to point out flaws in integrity from their fellow critics (assuming any wish to even do that simple level of internal regulation), or even post details of PR perks and gifts.

Also inspired from that confessions thread on here, whereby any 'reports' would go through an additional level of posting, to add an extra safeguard for anonymity.
In Australia we have a short TV programme on the national broadcaster called Mediawatch that skewers shoddy journalism practises every week. Only runs about 10 minutes, but they don't shy away from criticising anyone, even their own bosses on occassion.
 
Rab's beef with games journalism back in 2008 - personally i whole heartedly agree, but at that point (2008 or before) i'd already dispensed with reading or giving a flying shit with what 99% of the gaming media, bloggers, or any other gob on a stick thought outside of a handful of people i connected with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xQeQ39m_38A
Rob Florence said:
NGamer is our last best hope.
Which sadly published its last issue on 7th September 2012.
 
I still remember the cheers that erupted when MS gave away free Xboxes at the end of their E3 thing when they introduced the slim. I think that's where the very low bar that the profession set and I figure it would behoove them to try to raise that bar.

But then again, not only are some willing to say they're not journalists, some revel in the fact that they are enthusiasts. I think that's fair, but I wish there were more people who sat on the other end of that spectrum.
Thank you for bringing that up. I remember sites (including, yes, Giant Bomb and Jeff Gerstmann) going "awesome, cool, free Xboxes!!!" and giving a ton of coverage to their new free Xboxes by constantly talking about them... and then insisting that the "internet idea" that there was some kind of impropriety or dirtiness involved was just conspiracy nonsense.

It was exactly what Shawn was talking about. People getting pandered to and turned into unwitting advertising machines, then steadfastly claiming that it "doesn't work on them" like it's some kind of RPG spell that they have immunity towards.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Rab's beef with games journalism back in 2008 - personally i whole heartedly agree, but at that point (2008 or before) i'd already dispensed with reading or giving a flying shit with what 99% of the gaming media, bloggers, or any other gob on a stick thought outside of a handful of people i connected with:
Well, yeah... But that's the problem: this has been going on for a long time and the fact that major blogs don't have the balls to write about it (and state what they do/do not get from PR) speaks volumes about how corrupt they are.
 
Can you honestly blame publisher PR departments for engaging in these types of activities? They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't. If I were in the same position, you're DAMNED RIGHT I'd do my best take advantage of the fandom of the interactive entertainment media to obtain as much positive mindshare for my product as possible.

And if that involves both subtle and not-so-subtle manipulation, then so be it!

The fault in matter doesn't lie with the corporate PR, not when everyone involved is an adult and knows very well how the "game" is played.
 
We don't have to guess at what people are interested in. We can see what they're searching for, and how they get to the site. It's driven by bigger games. That might suck, but it is what it is.
I just want to point out how self reinforcing this is.

I would argue that the audience interest in bigger games is driven just as much by the preeminence those "bigger games" are given in the media as it is the other way around.

Consumer preference can be manipulated. The interest and preference for those "AAA" games is not intrinsic for everyone. Gaming sites cultivated it, for a variety of reasons.
 
Well, yeah... But that's the problem: this has been going on for a long time and the fact that major blogs don't have the balls to write about it (and state what they do/do not get from PR) speaks volumes about how corrupt they are.
Heck, it was already going on in the amiga days, in the wake of the Rise of the Robots reviews.
 
The consumer preference for "AAA" games is not intrinsically different from how schlock journalism works in other fields.

E! Entertainment news would of course claim that they spend so much airtime on tabloid journalism because people are interested in it, and they want to cater to the market. I would argue that interest in Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian etc. is not some inherent property of consumers, and that the taste for this specific brand of schlock was cultivated by E! and Us Weekly and Extra! just as much as it was by consumers. As some news broadcasts show -- even supposedly reputable ones -- journalism is not simply an observer reporting the facts. They don't just report reality, but can create it if it benefits them in some way.
 
Heck, it was already going on in the amiga days, in the wake of the Rise of the Robots reviews.

Its gotten worse this gen now though. Flying people to paid vacations to Hawai? staying at a 4 star hotel in japan in a sleep over with Kojima? Paid tours of Venice? the amount publishers/pr are paying to wine and dine game journalists are absurd which is why the distrust of the enthuthiast press is so strong now.
 
What really irks me about the N'Gai tweet is the replies from PR people. They're incredibly smug because they know they sit secure in their position as access controllers and, as a consequence, controllers of gaming media content. The circle will continue.
 
Thank you for bringing that up. I remember sites (including, yes, Giant Bomb and Jeff Gerstmann) going "awesome, cool, free Xboxes!!!" and giving a ton of coverage to their new free Xboxes by constantly talking about them... and then insisting that the "internet idea" that there was some kind of impropriety or dirtiness involved was just conspiracy nonsense.

It was exactly what Shawn was talking about. People getting pandered to and turned into unwitting advertising machines, then steadfastly claiming that it "doesn't work on them" like it's some kind of RPG spell that they have immunity towards
.
That's a very good point, and a clear application of that idea.
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
Well, yeah... But that's the problem: this has been going on for a long time and the fact that major blogs don't have the balls to write about it (and state what they do/do not get from PR) speaks volumes about how corrupt they are
i feel another part of the problem is that the hardcore gamer is NOT part of most website/gaming sites demographic for the same reason that i mentioned prior....

at some point, long term self identified hardcore gamers eventually realise that other peoples opinion on gaming is largely moot other than to reinforce their own opinion and that their own personal gaming taste is as individual as , say, a music fan, a sports fan etc. However, as gamers age and come to further realise the initial observation about individual tastes solidifies then the gaming press takes on less and less importance to the point that it becomes a point of annoyance. Eventually - you just flat out blank anything that you don't identify with.

I will flat out say i've not used the Gaming Press for years, i have a few people i look out for because they produce good quality entertaining journalism, but this whole farce and the resulting responses to it simply back up what i've thought (and witnessed over the years) about the gaming industry and it's interaction with the mechanisms of the industry : if you cannot see that the problem exists, if you cannot see why there's a perceived conflict of interest, if you cannot see why in any other industry you'd be ringfenced from this relationship then you are living in a weird fantasy land.

Pointing at significantly more powerful industries and immediately pointing at -real- accredited journalists and saying "but look at these guys" ignores the fact that in gaming journalism it seems to permiate from the bottom most level all the way up. Pointing at other vastly more mature industry to say "well, it goes on everywhere" simultaneously passes the buck whilst giving a tacit nod to the fact it IS going on.

But anyways - as far as i'm concerned - the Good Guys in the industry will not be affected by this , the shit feeders are going to be a little more edgy.

In reality i hope this achieves the following : that enthusiast gamers stop giving a shit what the gaming press thinks. Ultimately - what they say to gamers of XX years experience means, ultimately, nothing. We've made our minds up already - and we need to accept there's a seperation between who they are targetting and what we are interested in. Getting over excited or angry to what they do is counter productive and a waste of energy - instead hunt down people you identify with and make more of those connections. The future of gaming coverage for gaming enthusiasts is going to live within the gaming enthusiast community it would seem - STOP reacting to these sites, magazines, etc - unless they ACTUALLY make thought provoking commentary. If they don't? Fuck em, and move on. Vote with your tweet/visit/etc.
 
Can you honestly blame publisher PR departments for engaging in these types of activities? They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't. If I were in the same position, you're DAMNED RIGHT I'd do my best take advantage of the fandom of the interactive entertainment media to obtain as much positive mindshare for my product as possible.

And if that involves both subtle and not-so-subtle manipulation, then so be it!

The fault in matter doesn't lie with the corporate PR, not when everyone involved is an adult and knows very well how the "game" is played.
No one is blaming the PR departments, just saying they have shitty jobs that make them do shitty things. People are blaming the media for acquiescing.
 
Thank you for bringing that up. I remember sites (including, yes, Giant Bomb and Jeff Gerstmann) going "awesome, cool, free Xboxes!!!" and giving a ton of coverage to their new free Xboxes by constantly talking about them... and then insisting that the "internet idea" that there was some kind of impropriety or dirtiness involved was just conspiracy nonsense.

It was exactly what Shawn was talking about. People getting pandered to and turned into unwitting advertising machines, then steadfastly claiming that it "doesn't work on them" like it's some kind of RPG spell that they have immunity towards.
This doesn't really have anything to do with what you're talking about, but this post reminded me of the butt pad story. The one where apparently a bunch of dudes were scooping up some xbox branded butt pads after a Microsoft press event to sell them on craiglist/ebay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.