Should reviews include 'how the sausage gets made' (labor conditions, etc.)?

[Lime]

Whether it is game reviews describing how good or bad a game is, or if it's the analysis of the latest game hardware, most of the focus is solely on the product itself, and rarely, if ever, the production process that went into it. Yet isn't it of interest and concern to consumers how the 'sausage gets made'? Do you care personally care how a product is made and should this factor into a review? The thread doesn't necessarily mean that it should factor into a score or an evaluation, just if it was information or a text blurb included in the articles themselves. For example

• When IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, Polygon, RPS, etc. review a game they never mention the work that went into it and the labor conditions of the developers who programmed it. For example, when these outlets were reviewing Red Dead Redemption, should the review have included a mention of the disastrous working conditions at Rockstar San Diego? Should they mention how the employees at Konami are bullied and harassed?
  
• Similarly, when outlets review the latest game hardware, such as the Switch or the PS4 or the latest Xbox, should they also mention how their existence relies on horrendous working conditions in manufacturing the consoles? Should Gizmodo or Engadget mention that the PS4 was produced at Foxconn on the backs of over-worked and exploited women?
  
• Or when Digital Foundry or Anandtech do an analysis of the latest GPU by Nvidia or CPU by Intel, should they mention the reliance on rare-earth minerals extracted by slave labor in DRC and elsewhere? Or the recycling plans of old obsolete technology by the company in question?

Of course, people might say that they do not care or that it's not the responsibility of critics to highlight how things get made, but isn't making relations of productions opaque just commodity fetishism? Anyway, just something I was wondering and that I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions on.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

How is any of that relevant to the purposes of a review, which are informing people on whether they should buy a game or not, and assessing the game's quality? I can understand how that might be an important article to touch on, but seems entirely out of place in a review.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

The purpose of a review is to assess the quality of the game. How it was made has absolutely zero bearing on that.

 

[Hot Coldman]

I don't really think so. Ultimately reviews serve a pretty singular process (is this game good?, or rather "should I buy this game?") and I think there's other, better ways to shine a light on crap development process.

I mean, as much as one can, anyway. Part of the problem of standardising development breakdown in a review format is that, usually, fuck all is known about a game's development.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Hell no. You can write an editiorial about how company X treats its employees but stuff like that shouldn't be mentioned in previews/reviews etc.

 

[1st Course]

How would they even know about the work conditions in the first place?

It's not like the companies will come out and say "hey we treat our employees like shit"

 

[oni-link]

No, those things should be addressed, but a review is not the place for it

 

[Toadthemushroom]

I find it interesting discovering developer stories about working conditions, or where hardware materials are sourced, but a review is not the best place for it. It shouldn't become a box to tick as part of a reviews process because there's no standardised way of discovering this information in a way which is consistent across all developers for all games and projects.

Reviews ultimately set out to determine how well a game achieves what it sets out to achieve. Having people inevitably forming associations between working conditions (which may or may not be true or verifiable) and the quality of the game as a piece of entertainment would be a bad thing. The two would be important to cover in their own right but shouldn't be linked together.

Bad working conditions can lead to good games, good working conditions can lead to good games, and vice versa for both those statements. The best place to mention them, in the context of the game as a creation, would be a retrospective or a post-mortem, where the developers themselves make their own call on the work they did to make the game a success or failure. They would have the best judgement about whether it was a good or bad thing for the game, whether crunch etc. might have been necessary, whether poor management was responsible for some failures etc.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

Do you consider the working conditions and environment of other products you purchase? I'm sure many of them are manufactured under a lot worse conditions then a videogame.

 

[Z3M0G]

No because game journalism should extend beyond promos and reviews... if something bad is taking place behind the scenes, we should learn about it through other investigative articles.

 

[Nugg]

Those a very real and important issues, but a product review is not the place to raise them.

 

[kqedequalsvolvo]

Do you consider the working conditions and environment of other products you purchase? I'm sure many of them are manufactured under a lot worse conditions then a videogame.

I do and I think increasingly a lot of consumers do too and it plays into their buying habits - same reason a lot of companies throw money into PR campaigns that trumpet their working conditions, environmental commitments and so on (truthfully or otherwise).

Agree with a lot of people here - think it's totally worth addressing but I don't think a review is the place for it.

 

[Drillary Clinton]

Completely irrelevant to the quality of the finished product. Devs typically work long grueling hours and can still put out a turd. It's unfortunate but the harsh truth. It's definitely an issue within the industry. A review could be a good place to discuss it given context. However, it shouldn't be brought into the equation of the quality of the game.

 

[Valahart]

Me and my boyfriend are so beyond addicted to Stephen's Sausage Roll right now that this thread to me was about that game by default and I thought "NO!WHY RUIN THE GAME"

 

[HariKari]

Do you consider the working conditions and environment of other products you purchase? I'm sure many of them are manufactured under a lot worse conditions then a videogame.

Ask Lime about the morality of air conditioning.

The answer is no, reviews should not include such information because it's not relevant unless the game is bad and that can be partially explained by additional info.

Bigger pieces and editorials are where you put shitty companies on blast, not buried in a small section of a review.

 

[DerZuhälter]

I don't see the mention of dead chinese workers on [insert tech device] reviews?

 

[spineduke]

This falls into the bigger debate of ethical consumption - I agree that greater awareness should be made, but I'd argue that it should be more everpresent than in a review text. Have it on digital storefront, as a disclaimer in the game itself etc...

 

[psychowave]

How is any of that relevant to the purposes of a review, which are informing people on whether they should buy a game or not, and assessing the game's quality? I can understand how that might be an important article to touch on, but seems entirely out of place in a review.

Youu could make the point that people shouldn't buy a game made under poor labor conditions.

 

[Rahvar]

I don't think that belongs in a review of a consumer product.

Also, can you imagine the "biased reviewer" outcry? Reviewer X said Druckmann is an evil dictator to his programmers and gives all Naughty Dog games a lower score because of it...

 

[ClivePwned]

you'd probably never buy any game.

 

[runningjoke]

Intel is supposedly using "conflict-free minerals". If journalists want to find out if that claim is any good I'd love to read the article, but that falls way out of scope of a product review.

Mentioning the conflict free thing in a review may seem like an advertorial.

 

[Deft Beck]

That has nothing to do with whether or not you should buy a game at the consumer level. Those are broader industry issues that are important, but irrelevant to the purpose of an individual review.

 

[Diancecht]

The average gamer don't give a single fuck about the working conditions of said devs.

It's sad but true.

 

[oni-link]

I don't see the mention of dead chinese workers on [insert tech device] reviews?

I also doubt reviews/write ups of all the 2022 World Cup games will feature the names of those who died building the stadiums

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

9.0/10

+ best game ever
- sweatshop conditions

eh, I don't get it. Let a review be a review, and do a proper, dedicated story on development conditions if it's warranted.

 

[oni-link]

The average gamer don't give a single fuck about the working conditions of said devs.

It's sad but true.

I wouldn't say that

It's more that most gamers don't know about them

It needs more exposure and reform, but reviews are not the place to do that

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Youu could make the point that people shouldn't buy a game made under poor labor conditions.

Well then people wouldn't be buying 99% of games or software

 

[ClosingADoor]

Of course not. Plus, how are they supposed to know the conditions people work under for all these games?

 

[BGBW]

People care about what goes in their sausages since they eat them and have a direct link to their health. There's not the same worry when it comes to games.

 

[JaseC]

I wouldn't object to such information being included, but I couldn't imagine publishers being forthcoming. "Crunch time" is the norm in the industry and admitting that developers were effectively forced to work long hours wouldn't make for good PR, to say nothing of any other questionable managerial decisions that may have cropped up throughout development. Developers could be approached instead or as a verification measure, of course, however there would need to be a consensus.

 

[BeeDog]

I'm quite a strict "separate the product from the producer" type, so no, I don't think so. Also, human beings can't and shouldn't attempt to care about every injustice on the planet. Good work laws, ethics, unions, CSR etc. should more than make up for this fact. Semi-professional reviewers on the net shouldn't really need to act as valiant knights in their reviews for an audience that most likely won't care much about it. Use features and other outlets for that kind of reporting.

 

[Taliban Stan]

That's relevant for a news story. It's not relevant to a game review imo. What are we saying, the game is bad but there was no crunch so I'll give it a B? Save that for an exposé.

 

[MadMod]

I would like the information but it isn't really relevant. Also it can get very shady about how you get that information. Konami for example would never try to let you know how their conditions are. Plus people would lie about the conditions and their jobs may be on the line if they don't.

 

[raven777]

No I don't think that's something that should be factored into a review. More of separate news story if certain game's working condition is abnormal.

 

[NSider]

The world would be a better place if people knew how products get into their hands. It would impact my buying decision if I knew that a company was abusing its employees or if its chief executive was a white supremacist.

Are reviews the best place for this? I'm not sure, but they could be a good place to start.

 

[Yakhont]

I dont think reviewers have the resources or desire to look into studios and jeopardise their relationships with the developers and publishers.

There is a reason why these leaks are anonymous in the first place.

 

[hotcyder]

Interesting point - cause to some extent the conditions a product was made in does have an effect on the product as a whole (Bioshock Infinite comes to mind).

The only equivalent that comes to mind would be a restaurant review - where the review doesn't just cover the product consumed (in this case a menu item) but also the setting and the hospitality.

However I don't think any review outlet is should really write reviews about game companies - it's a little too personal and abstract.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Hell no. You can write an editiorial about how company X treats its employees but stuff like that shouldn't be mentioned in previews/reviews etc.

Yep; totally agree. If Kotaku or Eurogamer or whatever want juicy stuff like this they should save it for separate editorials, but it should not impact on the review of the game, which should focus on the game's quality and nothing else.

 

[Hot Coldman]

The world would be a better place if people knew how products get into their hands. It would impact my buying decision if I knew that a company was abusing its employees or if its chief executive was a white supremacist.

Are reviews the best place for this? I'm not sure, but they could be a good place to start.

Most sites have the ability for bylines or whatever to link to relevant articles, so the review body isn't the be-all and end-all for exposing this stuff. Something to think about.

 

[Jerry]

No thanks.

 

[Mohasus]

Nope, and I don't give a fuck about that.

 

[HeatBoost]

It should probably be an issue, and a visible one, but I don't know if reviews are the right place for it. You're criticizing a product, not a studio's work conditions or a publisher's policies. There are different platforms for that.

If someone has REAL ISSUES (TM) with the situation behind a game, they should probably just not review it at all and post an article about the issue instead.Not to mention someone who is qualified at articulating their thoughts about a game in a way that conveys how they feel are not necessarily the same people who are capable investigative journalists who can find out all the details behind the work conditions of a studio/publisher/hardware manufacturer.

Not everyone is Patrick Klepek

 

[onken]

No because games where the dirt leaks will be held in considerably less favorable light compared to games made by studios with no leaks (which make be indicative of even more Draconian conditions).

 

[Dunkley]

I'm going against the stream here and say yes. This is a topic more people should be talking about, and while I think it should have no bearing in the score, it should definitely be a thing reviews at least mention.

 

[Polk]

Even if you had verifable information, how deep we need to go? Should used middleware (Unreal Engine etc) count as well?

 

[Pixels]

There's usually no way to find out but it's best to assume there were many overworked people involved.

 

[emalord]

Reviews must be short, so the answer is NOPE. They are already overlong and lack synthesis all around but I guess it's because they are read by people that ask for more and more and more and more.

 

[ASIS]

Reviews must be dedicated to the end product and nothing else. It doesn't matter if the amount of hours were high or if the work conditions were disastrous. These are separate issues and thus should be given their own focus.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I mean if a reviewer wants to include that information, sure. It might be relevant to somebody, but definitely not the majority.

So I guess technically my answer to 'should they' would be no. But can they? If they want to.

 

[michaelius]

We barely can get info in reviews about game cripling bugs or bad performance so this sounds like utopia