Support NeoGAF

[BlastProcessing]

"Apologies for any confusion."

I don't think anyone is confused by what is going on here.

More people should try that "Apologies for any confusion" thing next time they get caught red handed.

"Senator, what do you say to allegations that you were seen in a hotel room with 17 hookers and illicit drugs?"

"At a recent rave some hookers may have been invited to an after party I attended. This was not in line with my personal conduct policies. Apologies for any confusion."

"Thank you for clearing that up."

 

[unbias]

I'm interested in the extent of hospitality practices from major publishers and the differences between them, interviews with PRs from these firms and discussions of how they set the boundaries and what they regard as 'over the line'. It can be very revealing to see what kind of importance people on both sides of a transaction assign to a thing, it's not unheard of for one side to regard it as trivial and 'standard practice' but for the other to say 'If we don't do it we know that we'll get negative coverage'. It's probably just a personal fascination of mine but the business of how these things are presented is as interesting to me as the thing being presented.

Heh, it would be kinda interesting if some university researched the game industry and took a look at tone, scores, and ect and took into account the PR involvement with the media, similar in the vein of the research done to sports refs.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011667
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/26/151383136/power-dis-play-teams-in-black-draw-more-penalties
http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html

If it happens in sports, by people who are supposed to be objective as possible(refs), you know it happens in the games industry were game reviewers dont get paid that much and there is less incentive to be uneffected by PR/Marketing/Advertisement.

 

[Lalalandia]

I don't know why this doesn't really bother me. I guess it's because if I was the journalist in that situation, I'd take the tablet, think to myself "Thanks for the free tablet Ubi", and that would be the end of it. If the tablet was an attempt to get a better score out of the review (and it probably is), it would be a waste of money as it wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the game other than it giving me the ability to mess with the second screen functionality. Personally, I don't subscribe to the mentality of gift giving subconsciously affecting your enjoyment of a game and if it consciously is and you don't recuse yourself, then that person was pretty untrustworthy to begin with and I think that would be pretty obvious from their past work. I can only speak for myself though, so I understand people's skepticism of the situation. I do think they should disclose that kind of info in any future opinion based coverage they're involved with so I can at least have that context.

Whether you subscribe to the idea or not countless sociological experiments have shown that humans are apt to rate things from people they like more highly than those they dislike or are merely neutral towards. That's why PRs are friendly and approachable rather than bored misanthropes barking facts and figures about a title. I completely agree with you about the disclosure aspect though and just as with the Games Media Awards storm a last year it's revealing that only a minority of the attendees have mentioned this aspect of the event to this point.

 

[iNvid02]

its good some of this stuff comes to light almost immediately now, hopefully it will further discourage it

 

[Vooduu]

Welcome to the real world. This happens in many industries. Not even surprised.

 

[kiunchbb]

I don't know why this doesn't really bother me. I guess it's because if I was the journalist in that situation, I'd take the tablet, think to myself "Thanks for the free tablet Ubi", and that would be the end of it. If the tablet was an attempt to get a better score out of the review (and it probably is), it would be a waste of money as it wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the game other than it giving me the ability to mess with the second screen functionality. Personally, I don't subscribe to the mentality of gift giving subconsciously affecting your enjoyment of a game and if it consciously is and you don't recuse yourself, then that person was pretty untrustworthy to begin with and I think that would be pretty obvious from their past work. I can only speak for myself though, so I understand people's skepticism of the situation. I do think they should disclose that kind of info in any future opinion based coverage they're involved with so I can at least have that context.

You suppose to act independent both in fact and appearance.

This doesn't apply only to reviewer, but nearly every professional field that works with a 3rd parties.

 

[boredandlazy]

*Posting this from a Nexus 7 that I did

Spoiler

n't

get for free from Ubisoft.*

 

[Dawg]

Oh, I have no idea. I don't deal with this stuff all that much.

I've heard all sorts of ridiculous junket stories though, from helicopter rides to sports car races to... well, there was a Duke Nukem Forever preview at an actual strip club, which I can only hope will never, ever happen again.

I once went to a Dead Island preview event in Holland where they hired people to act as zombies. These people wandered around all day making zombie sounds, were dressed up to make it seem "real" (make-up and everything) and they didn't go out of character at any point.

There was this one fat zombie, dude played his part real good. He'd stand behind someone playing the preview build, carrying some huge-ass weapon. He just stood there, making quiet zombie noises. And then, when the person finally ended his gameplay session and turned around, they would see him and be terrified or w/e. It was awkward/funny.

It's not strip club levels of bad, but I can't help but think stuff like that is unncessary. I understand the publisher wanting to build some kind of theme, but I couldn't take it serious at all. I found it funny and I kinda felt bad for those extras who had to walk around as zombies all day, lol.

 

[Ponn]

Just find an honest reviewer to follow, problem solved.

Easier said then done. I also work with strict gifting rules. You dont take them, period. This "I took it, but i will give it to charity" is just as bad to me. Not only are the disclosures reactionary but they took it to begin with making their integrity questionable off the bat. What reason do i believe they will follow through or not take the next gift?

Its obvious from the ones in the industry who come into these threads jedi mind trick handwaving it all off that there is no intention of changing the status quo or holding people accountable or feet to the fire. It really is a bit patronizing to be honest. And then the audacity of some in said industry to act indignant and when called out on their integrity later and treat their audience with disrespect and blatant loathing is reprehensible. The onus is not on the consumers to wade through the corrupt mass and hope they found a trustworthy source. Its on the industry to hold themselves accountable and each other.

And if the industry wont do it then the onus is on the public to stop supprting their livelihood in a very vocal and resounding manner so they understand. Unfortunately for all parties this whole industry is so intwined and connected in an unhealthy way its impossible to get reviewers unconnected for fear of losing out on a publisher community job or the sycophant fans that are always praising everyone for being so brave with their non-answers and measured responses.

Whatever. For the love of god just stop calling them journalist giving them a title they in no way shape or form deserve. They are bloggers with an audience, nothing more.

 

[Vice]

Yes some are not paid for, and certainly most do fall out of the need to know range. The same could be said for press previews for just about any major consumer product launch including games.

I know for a fact that many major companies approach newspapers and the like to write feature articles about a particular facet within a industry. However many of these articles also have a very deliberate slant, bias or hidden agenda in highlighting something that is driving commercial interests. Different arrangements can be made in relation to who funds these articles and some are disclosed in fine print as 'Paid Advertisements'.

Those are advetorials.

 

[FStop7]

A) people who primarily write previews and reviews are game critics, not journalists
B) critics need a tablet to critique the second screen stuff. while most people have access to a tablet, there's probably enough people who wouldn't have enough access to one, or at least wouldn't have access to an ideal tablet (nexus or ipad) that they felt the need to give these out

lmao this guy

 

[Lalalandia]

Heh, it would be kinda interesting if some university researched the game industry and took a look at tone, scores, and ect and took into account the PR involvement with the media, similar in the vein of the research done to sports refs.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011667
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/26/151383136/power-dis-play-teams-in-black-draw-more-penalties
http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html

If it happens in sports, by people who are supposed to be objective as possible(refs), you know it happens in the games industry were game reviewers dont get paid that much and there is less incentive to be uneffected by PR/Marketing/Advertisement.

Thanks very much for the links! I find the psychology of this stuff absolutely fascinating

 

[shysaursoft]

It's pretty slimy, but par for the course in all walks of "journalism" that involves products. Car reviewers are often given serious discounts on that car, cellphone reviewers get the phones, game reviewers get copies of the game or related swag like consoles or in this case, tablets. Movie reviewers get copies of the movie, sometimes even a big flatscreen TV. People who review golf gear for golf sites and magazines, get some really expensive tech as "gifts" too.

I cannot think of a single industry that involves reviewing something, where press isn't likely to get some form of "swag" or fringe benefit. Heck, even just being a radio DJ gets you wined and dined, to make sure you play the label's newest hit as much as possible.

It'd be a bit naive to act like this is a problem exclusive to games journalism, or even that it's worse in gaming than it is in other industries. Doesn't make it right, though - but as long as "marketing" works, PR agencies will use any and all avenues to try and signal boost their represented products. Not all gaming journalism is just an arm of marketing, every publication / site has their own policies. It's a matter of readers understanding which ones do what, and deciding who to follow.

This includes e-celebrities on YouTube and Twitch who do let's plays or game streams. Those people aren't immune to this kind of PR meddling either.

PR is industry politics, and it only takes three people to create politics: two with opposing views, and one to convince.

 

[iratA]

Those are advetorials.

Sure, you can call them that. They are still a covert form of marketing where parallels can be drawn.

 

[Glass Shark]

Not to say this kind of thing isn't problematic, because it is, but it's a little silly to assume that a critic will give a good review to a bad game for this kind of thing.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Why a nexus 7? Why not a 10 or 9.5?

 

[koutoru]

Not to say this kind of thing isn't problematic, because it is, but it's a little silly to assume that a critic will give a good review to a bad game for this kind of thing.

But who knows? It might shift that IGN 8.9 to a 9.

 

[Hellshy.]

Whether you subscribe to the idea or not countless sociological experiments have shown that humans are apt to rate things from people they like more highly than those they dislike or are merely neutral towards. That's why PRs are friendly and approachable rather than bored misanthropes barking facts and figures about a title. I completely agree with you about the disclosure aspect though and just as with the Games Media Awards storm a last year it's revealing that only a minority of the attendees have mentioned this aspect of the event to this point.

Why would you mention it. Either you mention it b/c you didn't get one or b/c you are trying to win favor and ride the recent wave of publicity on this subject. We are talking about video game reviews here not coverage on Iraq. Someone gives you something free you take it. You don't throw them under the bus.You are not obligated to give them a good review. They were using the tablets for a demo its not a big deal at all. Maybe I am in the minority here since I don't really care about game reviews anyway but I have more of a problem with those reviewers making a stink about receiving free goodies for what is most likely done for self gain , then I do with the ones who got them and didn't say a thing.

 

[Glass Shark]

It'd be a bit naive to act like this is a problem exclusive to games journalism, or even that it's worse in gaming than it is in other industries. Doesn't make it right, though - but as long as "marketing" works, PR agencies will use any and all avenues to try and signal boost their represented products.

I read this article about Billboard and the music business the other day. Pretty thought-provoking. Reminded me a lot of the things you hear about the supposed corruption of the games press.

 

[unbias]

Not to say this kind of thing isn't problematic, because it is, but it's a little silly to assume that a critic will give a good review to a bad game for this kind of thing.

Well, we have seen where early reviews give abnormally glowing reviews to mediocre games(Dragon Age 2). Beyond that, to assume to doesnt effect a review at all is silly. Or are you saying that these companies are idiots, and they dont do this for any reason other then to be nice? It might not make the bad game review as good, but it might make a bad game get a 6 instead of a 4, or it might make a good game get a 95+ instead of an 89, or it might make a 6/10 get a 7 or 8/10, or it might even make the words on the review nicer. These companies are not doing it just cause, they are clearly seeing a result they like, so what result do you think that is, if it isnt review scores?

 

[Orayn]

Not to say this kind of thing isn't problematic, because it is, but it's a little silly to assume that a critic will give a good review to a bad game for this kind of thing.

The cynic in me says that they wind up giving bad games good reviews because they'll get blacklisted by the publisher otherwise.

Admittedly, I can't prove this is widespread, since we never learn about it until it's too late.

 

[Kikarian]

Don't get it. What's the issue. Wouldn't mind freebies.

It's possible you could be being sarcastic, but I don't think you are.

Reviews are no longer reliable (If they ever were). It requires these 'freebies' you speak of to get games journalists to rate their game highly. Which completely defeats the object.

They didn't give these journalists a Nexus 7 as a good will gesture, they did it so the journalist felt the obligation to give the game a high score, so again, Ubisoft give them another 'freebie' for the next game event I.E: AssCreed.

 

[Glass Shark]

But who knows? It might shift that IGN 8.9 to a 9.

Honestly, I still think that's a stretch. But again, that doesn't make it cool that stuff like this happens. In an ideal world it really shouldn't. But pragmatically, it's just what we have to deal with if you want to read "professional" game reviews.

 

[Liha]

I am not surprised.

 

[Ponn]

Not to say this kind of thing isn't problematic, because it is, but it's a little silly to assume that a critic will give a good review to a bad game for this kind of thing.

Why is it silly? Ubi obviously didnt think so. You yourself start your post validating its problematic. If it was silly to assume that then why would it be problematic.

FFS have we accounted for all the known reviewers on this site posting in here trying to minamilize or hand wave this off yet?

 

[not_so_special]

Gross. But sounds like this was a European thing? Worth noting. European press and US press seem to have totally different standards, rules, and practices. All that free PS3 stuff a couple years ago was also in the UK.

wait.hahahahhahahahahahha yeah pretty sure us press is impolute..how much the free travels to hawai resorts from capcom costs?

 

[Backfoggen]

Shoulda given out iPads

 

[shysaursoft]

I read this article about Billboard and the music business the other day. Pretty thought-provoking. Reminded me a lot of the things you hear about the supposed corruption of the games press.

The gaming industry still has ways to go before it gets as slimy as the music industry, funnily enough. Gaming is still playing in the kiddy pool when it comes to backroom politics, especially compared to Hollywood too. In a strange way, that gaming media is still mostly enthusiast press, containing people like those that post on GAF regularly, works in its favour. They may be easily swayed by shinies, but there's no real malice behind it, and most writers still care - I feel - about representing the game correctly, even if they may be a touch biased one way or the other. Since the people who review games, are for the most part, still people who play them.

Disclaimer: I can promise you with 100% honesty that getting a pair of steel balls with Duke Nukem Forever branding on them, did not improve my opinion of the game in *any* way. But the balls are pretty sweet though.

 

[Glass Shark]

These companies are not doing it just cause, they are clearly seeing a result they like, so what result do you think that is, if it isnt review scores?

Miktar said it best: to "boost the signal". I doubt many companies actually think swag makes for higher-scoring games. But you can bet that it keeps those games top-of-mind and more likely to get reviewed or covered in general.

 

[Lalalandia]

Why would you mention it. Either you mention it b/c you didn't get one or b/c you are trying to win favor and ride the recent wave of publicity on this subject. We are talking about video game reviews here not coverage on Iraq. Someone gives you something free you take it. You don't throw them under the bus.You are not obligated to give them a good review. They were using the tablets for a demo its not a big deal at all. Maybe I am in the minority here since I don't really care about game reviews anyway but I have more of a problem with those reviewers making a stink about receiving free goodies for what is most likely done for self gain , then I do with the ones who got them and didn't say a thing.

Ethics is an absolute not a relative benchmark, it doesn't become ethical to do a thing in one industry and unethical in another.

You say it's not Iraq, but nor is who gets the contract to pave your counties roads and how they did it? Nor is whether GM chose to go with a faulty ignition design to save a few million. Dismissing something as it's 'not X' just reveals you don't care about that topic but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of topics that you feel passionate about aren't Iraq either. Also the 'You're either jelly or self aggrandizing' line is a great way to dismiss all whistle blowing.

 

[unbias]

The person I quoted last said it best: to "boost the signal". I doubt many companies actually think swag makes for higher-scoring games. But you can bet that it keeps those games top-of-mind and more likely to get reviewed or covered in general.

Umm, what? So you think they give swag, press kits, and trips, simply to keep talking about it? That doesnt make sense, the games media doesnt talk about something simply because they are given stuff, it has to be news, it has to generate clicks, that only happens if PR feeds them preview/marketing material or something news worthy happens. They do this stuff to put themselves in a favorable light to journalists.

 

[CriterionDog]

Honestly, I think this is pretty cool for Ubisoft to do, even though some may view it as a bribe and not right. If the game isn't good, then we will definitely hear about it, even if some reviewers do give it a higher score than originally intended. Friends and gamers can persuade me more than a IGN or Gamespot review.

We will have to wait and see.

 

[shysaursoft]

They do this stuff to put themselves in a favorable light to journalists.

True. Though I think swag and wine-and-dine isn't just about bolstering potential review scores, but fostering a "friendly" connection between the publisher and the outlet. A kind of "scratch your back if you scratch mine", which is industry politics at its very core. I don't agree with it personally - I don't like that PR tries to be a "friend" and then cash in on all that such a connection implies. But I still think it's mostly about signal boosting, about keeping the product "important", which means journalists are more inclined to write about them, which is helpful if the journalists aren't already natural fans of the product.

At the end of the day, even if they don't accept the swag, the proper procedure is to have full disclosure in the article or write up about what was involved from the publisher side. This includes mentioning if the publisher paid for the flights, hotels, dinners, what swag was given, and what content type was discussed (cover, etc).

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Honestly, I think this is pretty cool for Ubisoft to do, even though some may view it as a bribe and not right. If the game isn't good, then we will definitely hear about it, even if some reviewers do give it a higher score than originally intended.

We will have to wait and see.

That's what I was thinking from the get go.

 

[RedNumberFive]

It's depressing how many GAFfers think that this behavior is A-OK.

 

[JABEE]

"Apologies for any confusion."

I don't think anyone is confused by what is going on here.

Yes, there is no confusion. I think journalists need to be harder on their peers. Saying stuff like "what proof is there that journalists took their free tablet?" Is akin to asking for a smoking gun or money bags in the case of bribes. I don't believe those things are required in this instance. I think it reasonable to infer that there were some who took the bribe.

We should highlight those instances and talk about why Ubisoft and other game publishers would even attempt to do this sort of thing. It's because it works. Journalists do accept these items. It took until the Wainwright incident for major gaming publications to even consider publishing a code of ethics.

 

[runnin_blue]

It's depressing how many GAFfers think that this behavior is A-OK.

There is a defense force for everything

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Like others have said, every job has a perk or two. The only people offended by this are the same high schoolers who think there's something fundamentally wrong with "games journalists," you'd have to be pretty young to think a cheap tablet is going to sway any adult with a paying job.

Unfortunately that's not how people work. Stuff like this does tend to influence people whether they're consciously aware of it or not. It might be subtle, but there will be an effect.

http://psychology.about.com/od/socialinfluence/f/rule-of-reciprocity.htm

 

[Vice]

Sure, you can call them that. They are still a covert form of marketing where parallels can be drawn.

If it is labeled as an advertisment then it is not a normal piece of editorial content. Advetorials are ads, no dfferent than a Honda ad spread in a magazine.

 

[Orayn]

It's depressing how many GAFfers think that this behavior is A-OK.

The people claiming they'd take the tablet and still be critical remind me of people who say they can "hold their liquor" and safely drive drunk.

 

[Davey Cakes]

This game is going to be mediocre at best, isn't it?

 

[Kade]

It's depressing how many GAFfers think that this behavior is A-OK.

I guess the line of thinking is that there are more important and deserving things in life to apply the outrage/emotion to. I've noticed more apathy, if anything.

 

[emag]

I cannot think of a single industry that involves reviewing something, where press isn't likely to get some form of "swag" or fringe benefit. Heck, even just being a radio DJ gets you wined and dined, to make sure you play the label's newest hit as much as possible.

I work for a quasi-judicial/quasi-regulatory/quasi-review entity and we certainly don't get any swag from our reviewees. We can't even accept a Subway sandwich. And if we have any kind of personal connection with the reviewee in question, we definitely turn the case over to others so as to avoid even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest. We can't even invest our personal money in sector-specific mutual funds, let alone individual companies.

Games journalism, like other forms of entertainment journalism, isn't held to anywhere near that kind of standard. And I have no problem with that. But it's absurd to draw a line at a $200 tablet computer that serves to demonstrate a particular game feature when at the same time Kotaku et al. happily accept $2000 all-expense-paid vacation packages without batting an eye as well (as all kinds of other swag).

 

[Glass Shark]

Umm, what? So you think they give swag, press kits, and trips, simply to keep talking about it? That doesnt make sense, the games media doesnt talk about something simply because they are given stuff, it has to be news, it has to generate clicks, that only happens if PR feeds them preview/marketing material or something news worthy happens. They do this stuff to put themselves in a favorable light to journalists.

I don't disagree with any of this, I just think the intended effect for publishers and PR is to get the press thinking and talking about a game. If it affects the score, that's just an added bonus. But I doubt it has very much impact on scores overall. It would be pretty much impossible to measure.

 

[unbias]

Unfortunately that's not how people work. Stuff like this does tend to influence people whether they're consciously aware of it or not. It might be subtle, but there will be an effect.

Oh come on, nonlogical marketing never works! Just look at beer and coke commercials, they are always about the great taste of the beer/soda and never about things that have nothing to do with taste!

 

[RedNumberFive]

I guess the line of thinking is that there are more important and deserving things in life to apply the outrage/emotion to.

I guess morals and class are unimportant when it comes to vidyagames and free swag. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[shysaursoft]

I work for a quasi-judicial/quasi-regulatory/quasi-review entity and we certainly don't get any swag from our reviewees. We can't even accept a Subway sandwich. And if we have any kind of personal connection with the reviewee in question, we definitely turn the case over to others so as to avoid even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest. We can't even invest our personal money in sector-specific mutual funds, let alone individual companies.

That's pretty hardcore, I'll admit. But it also sounds to me like an outlier, based on personal experience with a lot of magazine industries, though admittedly anecdotal is anecdotal.

Games journalism, like other forms of entertainment journalism, isn't held to anywhere near that kind of standard. And I have no problem with that. But it's absurd to draw a line at a $200 tablet computer that serves to demonstrate a particular game feature when at the same time Kotaku et al. happily accept $2000 all-expense-paid vacation packages without batting an eye as well (as all kinds of other swag).

Agreed. I had to laugh a little when this Ubisoft Nexus thing broke, because in the grand scheme of things, it's actually pretty cheap swag and by far not the most ridiculous or expensive PR stunt I've seen. A $200 tablet does kind of pale compared to an all-expense paid trip to Vegas and then some.

 

[RedNumberFive]

That's pretty hardcore, I'll admit. But it also sounds to me like an outlier, based on personal experience with a lot of magazine industries, though admittedly anecdotal is anecdotal.

There is nothing hardcore about it. That is how legitimate businesses operate.

 

[Lalalandia]

Oh come on, nonlogical marketing never works! Just look at beer and coke commercials, they are always about the great taste of the beer/soda and never about things that have nothing to do with taste!

Absolutely and there's no way I buy my washing powder as a gateway to the amazing life "Whiter than White" whites apparently offers those nice people on the tv. I wonder why all these companies spend so much on marketing and advertisement..........

 

[RulkezX]

can we stop using the term "gamin journalist" unless speaking about people writing for gamasutra or gamesindustry.biz ?

do people use the term "film jouranlists" ?

do they have press cards ?

They're enthusiast press / blog contributors mostly. I dunno why some people want to pretend that these guys are real press. If people are basing their game purchases off what these guys write then the fault lies with them , not the reviewers.