Support NeoGAF

[Lalalandia]

Transparency is what helps fight corruption. The more this stuff gets called out, the less it'll happen. You think publishers want press tweets about their swagbags turning into giant forum threads on GAF and Reddit?

This is why I probably posted so much on this thread, my complaining on twitter is unlikely to trend but people posting in here and keeping it on the front page of NeoGAF gives the issue as much prominence as a largely anonymous forum lurker like me can. Of course we can argue back and forth about how much that is worth but it's as much noise as I can make to encourage other publishers not to indulge in this kind of thing in the future.

 

[Some Nobody]

Bribing people who work hand to mouth, with little professional education, in a field where exclusive stories and scoops rule, must be as easy as taking candy from a toddler.

Look at your "scandal" and the answer is plain. You couldn't bribe someone with a $200 tablet in most other industries if you tried. That's like, fucking bush league bribery.

Edit: Although admittedly, why this would sway...anyone, is still a bit perplexing. If your game's boring as shit, I'm still gonna write about that. You just gave me a free tablet to say it. Enjoy your 6.5.

 

[Lalalandia]

Speaking as a game consumer and someone not in either industry I'd appreciate you review the game they gave you warts and all.

Its not up to you to give cover for peoples jobs, nor to predict the future. Reviews can be updated when new code arrives, and should be in a time were more games are purposely moving to a gaming as a service model. But as far as what you get, review what's in front of you and nothing else.

I'd also point out this means holding off on MP portion or MP only reviews until you can actually get at the game outside of a well (sometimes not so well) crafted Dev enviorment.

In an ideal world we can and should disconnect ourselves from those relationships when asked for an honest assessment of someone's work but it's hard once you've spoken to that person and put some faces to the hundreds of names that scroll by in a AAA credits and even harder when it's just one name as in indie titles.

I completely get what your saying and at the same time the publishers and developers are also under pressure . As a whole I cant stand gaming PR and but its the nature of the beast. Unless most stop these practices you will be left picking up the pieces if you cant play the game. That is why I am not going to jump on Ubisoft with is something that is comparatively small beans to other things going on between gaming PR and reviewers

I guess I'm going on the basis of 'if you don't make a fuss now when?'. There are bigger targets and possibly better targets but few offer as clear an example of dodgy practice as offering free tablet computers. The complexity of trying to separate the relationship you have with a creator and the quality of their games is a much harder thing to unpack and harder to suggest concrete steps to rectify.

Take Leigh Alexander's amazingly frank piece on Irrational after the shuttering of that studio, she admits to knowing about a lot of the challenges and difficulties there long before the whole thing imploded but found it hard to throw people under the bus by running the story. On the flip side similar tales of troubled productions are grist to the mill of Variety and their reporters are likely just as familiar with the people involved there. Of course there are major differences between the two industries not least in production time scales and how projects are structured making leaving one project and moving to another far easier in the world of film compared to games.

Ubisoft giving out $200 Nexus 7 tablets though? That's straight forward and Ubisoft themselves have apologised for the practice when it was brought to light and are unlikely to repeat it again, other publishers are looking at this and thinking 'Do I want my press event to be about something that isn't the game? No let's not do that then'.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Smart post. Issues like these affect me and my colleagues a whole lot more than the swag we ignore at publisher events. We have frequent conversations about our relationships and how they affect what we cover. I know people at other outlets have the same sort of tough conversations.

It helps that we don't use review scores, which are most susceptible to outside pressure.

If I was a publisher, I would be trying to affect previews more than reviews anyways. Pre-Orders are where the moneys at these days.

I would love to see the publisher's internal memo's about their PR goals and how effective they feel swag is in reaching them.

 

[shysaursoft]

Look at your "scandal" and the answer is plain. You couldn't bribe someone with a $200 tablet in most other industries if you tried. That's like, fucking bush league bribery.

Edit: Although admittedly, why this would sway...anyone, is still a bit perplexing. If your game's boring as shit, I'm still gonna write about that. You just gave me a free tablet to say it. Enjoy your 6.5.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's not that the gift would raise the score, but rather, your refusal to "play the game" as it were would start impacting your relationships with the publishers, or your editor's relationships with the publishers. You give the game a 6.5 but take the gift. The publisher labels you as "untrustworthy" or "not a team player" and you stop getting invited to events. Eventually, all your bridges are burned (unfairly, mind you), and you're pretty much useless to most outlets, unless you have a *very* specific skill or personality, or have built up a worthwhile cult of personality that you can coast on.

Publishers are basically trying to determine the rules of the game, ones that if you don't play by, make you unable to continue working in the toxic industry they're creating. It's fine and dandy to say "well, I would never bow to their crap" and a lot of people say exactly that. But that *pressure* remains, and it does impact a great deal of the enthusiast press, even if they don't realize it.

If writing about video games isn't your livelihood, it's easy to be flippant. But if it's your career and your next paycheck is determined by those bridges, it can colour a person's opinions. You'll notice that people who don't directly interact with publishers, like people who do Let's Plays or such, who get money from ambient advertising, are usually far more critical and negative about things - right up until they join a network or get sponsored. Then they suddenly stop being so critical, unless that's their shtick and the basis of their cult of personality.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Absolutely sickening.

 

[Clockwork]

This seems to be one of the only industries where you can get away with this.

At my place of employment I get to take a yearly "principles of business ethics" training which includes going over policies and procedures which condemn/forbid such behavior.

 

[notoriousKTR]

When you can't win them, buy them.

 

[Cyrano]

Publishers are basically trying to determine the rules of the game, ones that if you don't play by, make you unable to continue working in the toxic industry they're creating. It's fine and dandy to say "well, I would never bow to their crap" and a lot of people say exactly that. But that *pressure* remains, and it does impact a great deal of the enthusiast press, even if they don't realize it.

Actually I would say that the enthusiast press is what powers these things, not the other way around. If there weren't a lot of people accepting these things, making them known and relevant, the PR groups would stop doing them. But we've now created a 16 page thread for what is, while definitely skeezy, also successfully marketing Ubisoft. Yes, bad marketing that reaches enough eyes/ears is still successful marketing (see Rebecca Black if you don't believe me).

edit: still relevant - http://video.pbs.org/video/2365181302/

 

[Zacxx201]

I dunno what I could do that you couldn't. I'm just asking that everyone stop jumping to conclusions when every twitter post so far from a journalist has been them saying they didn't keep the damn thing.

(And no, I have no plans to write an article about this - "big publisher gives out swag at press event" is not a new or noteworthy story, sadly. But if you're interested in more about the shitty things that video game publishers do to influence review scores, you should check out my big piece on Metacritic.)

Nah, definitely not something that's important to your audience. Your coworkers posting pictures of Sailor Moon or Oreos followed by 3-5 sentences is wayyy more important of a story, right? Why do actual credible work when you can just rip pictures of Twitter or Tumblr, write a few sentences, then make some quick cash? This is why your profession is mocked. You stay classy, Jason.
http://kotaku.com/somehow-sailor-moon-characters-as-the-avengers-works-1563123953
http://kotaku.com/there-are-tiny-people-living-amongst-our-oreos-1563321908

 

[RE_Player]

I don't work in the entertainment industry but if my boss found out I took some free products or sports tickets, which happens regularly when we are employed by rich clients from time to time, he would be furious. It opens up a whole can of worms that no one should want.

 

[unbias]

Actually I would say that the enthusiast press is what powers these things, not the other way around. If there weren't a lot of people accepting these things, making them known and relevant, the PR groups would stop doing them. But we've now created a 16 page thread for what is, while definitely skeezy, also successfully marketing Ubisoft. Yes, bad marketing that reaches enough eyes/ears is still successful marketing (see Rebecca Black if you don't believe me).

edit: still relevant - http://video.pbs.org/video/2365181302/

That works if you are just trying to get popular, but for products, bad press is bad press. If there is a negative connotation to a company it can affect the perception of the product you are selling and its success.

 

[Cyrano]

That works if you are just trying to get popular, but for products, bad press is bad press. If there is a negative connotation to a company it can affect the perception of the product you are selling and its success.

They care much less about opinion and much more about how many eyeballs are on their product. I would say that bad press can sink a product once it's out in the wild, but beforehand? Unlikely.

 

[shysaursoft]

Actually I would say that the enthusiast press is what powers these things, not the other way around.

Perhaps. And even if most enthusiast press declined swag and wine and dine, all it takes is a new group to show up that will accept such things for better representation, and the whole thing collapses again. It doesn't matter how moral and ethical you are in a climate where such thinking gets you locked out of the game, because if every publisher cut you out of the loop your outlet becomes next to useless. No more day one reviews for you, no more previews, no more press codes, no more information - thus readers/viewers go elsewhere, to the sites/magazines that *do* get the information.. and they get it by playing the politics game.

So from an ethical standpoint, yes, it's crap. From a business standpoint, as long as people need to be paid, there will be politics trying to wriggle in and determine content. This isn't a new fight - editorial department vs marketing department is as old as the sold printed word.

 

[somesayyea]

This seems to be one of the only industries where you can get away with this.

At my place of employment I get to take a yearly "principles of business ethics" training which includes going over policies and procedures which condemn/forbid such behavior.

That's because the gaming/enthusiast press (in general) is merely an extension of publishers' marketing / PR efforts.

 

[shysaursoft]

That's because the gaming press (in general) is merely an extension of publishers' marketing / PR efforts.

All press that involves products has this problem, not just the gaming press. We're just focused on the gaming press at the moment, because this is a gaming forum. Magazines/websites that cover cellphones, cars, electronics in general, etc - they all have the issue of editorial being influenced by PR.

Eventually this issue will expand as people realize that their favorite YouTube celebrities, for example, may be sent a nice video card or a free copy of a game, and because they're not "press", just some dude in a room that likes to talk about the games they play, somehow that's okay.

 

[Loakum]

Jinkies......I guess this is becoming more and more, the sign of the times we live in. It's a shame really.

 

[Cyrano]

All press that involves products has this problem, not just the gaming press. We're just focused on the gaming press at the moment, because this is a gaming forum. Magazines/websites that cover cellphones, cars, electronics in general, etc - they all have the issue of editorial being influenced by PR.

Agreed. NotebookReviews has had a long time battle over this sort of stuff with the manufacturers they cover.

That said, I would say that the gaming press does end up in egregious conflict of interest scenarios far more often than other industries. I think part of this is because the funding model for game press is so finicky. The other issue is that they're covering entertainment software and not "tech" formally (cars, phones, watches, etc.).

Entertainment software particularly is a narrow field, given the large majority of software is productivity-related.

 

[Some Nobody]

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's not that the gift would raise the score, but rather, your refusal to "play the game" as it were would start impacting your relationships with the publishers, or your editor's relationships with the publishers. You give the game a 6.5 but take the gift. The publisher labels you as "untrustworthy" or "not a team player" and you stop getting invited to events. Eventually, all your bridges are burned (unfairly, mind you), and you're pretty much useless to most outlets, unless you have a *very* specific skill or personality, or have built up a worthwhile cult of personality that you can coast on.

Publishers are basically trying to determine the rules of the game, ones that if you don't play by, make you unable to continue working in the toxic industry they're creating. It's fine and dandy to say "well, I would never bow to their crap" and a lot of people say exactly that. But that *pressure* remains, and it does impact a great deal of the enthusiast press, even if they don't realize it.

If writing about video games isn't your livelihood, it's easy to be flippant. But if it's your career and your next paycheck is determined by those bridges, it can colour a person's opinions. You'll notice that people who don't directly interact with publishers, like people who do Let's Plays or such, who get money from ambient advertising, are usually far more critical and negative about things - right up until they join a network or get sponsored. Then they suddenly stop being so critical, unless that's their shtick and the basis of their cult of personality.

No, it's not that I don't get it. But essentially as long as everyone wants everything for free publishers will continue to get away with stuff like this. Advertising money and power will always create issues like this.

And, in any case I was joking with my initial post. I have weird ideals when it comes to reviews and they aren't really workable on a larger scale. (Basically I think there's no such thing as bad publicity, so if something sucks you should ignore it altogether and bury it into irrelevancy. Again, not something that can work on major scales.)

 

[unbias]

They care much less about opinion and much more about how many eyeballs are on their product. I would say that bad press can sink a product once it's out in the wild, but beforehand? Unlikely.

Reputation risk assessment is a very big thing with publicly traded companies. Sure the game industry focus way to heavy on crisis assessments, instead, but perception of a companies reputation, when public, can and does effect stocks. The game industry is just bad at both of these, but reputation risk management is important to them to, just probably less so, since there isnt as much of a light on the practices of game companies.

 

[Xater]

 

[shysaursoft]

I think part of this is because the funding model for game press is so finicky.

Very true. Let's say you run a gaming magazine or website. To support the printing costs of the magazine or the running of the website, you need advertisers. You can only use off-topic advertisers (like deodorant or jeans or sex hotlines) to a degree to cover costs, but the bulk will have to come from advertisers that advertise things that your gaming-oriented readers will want to see. Ads for games, video games, etc.

And so, you have to interact with the game publishers and video card manufacturers to make deals for advertising. The advertisers essentially fund your entire operation (even if the magazine has a cover charge, that rarely funds the printing of the magazine). So you have to have amicable relations with the publishers and manufacturers.

Everything is fine, as long as both parties agree that advertising and editorial do not mix. But, eventually one side will get bullish. Let's say you have a lot of advertising by a certain peripheral maker. Your magazine reviews a product from that company. It gets a bad review, because it's a crap product. In a perfect world, that would be the end of it.

But instead, the review causes hundreds of thousands of units of that product to sit on shelves, and not move. The manufacturer loses money. They inform the magazine that, well sorry, we won't be advertising with you anymore because you hate us and made us lose money. They say, y'know, if you'd just agree to give us no lower than a 6 or 7 for anything we make, we could come to an agreement.

If the management of the magazine says "gtfo", that's a lost advertiser. If the magazine cannot find a replacement advertiser moving forward, that means either firing someone, or cutting the pagecount. Cut the pagecount enough, and your magazine looks anemic, and a competitor (who does play ball with the manufacturer) looks more appealing, might have a lower cover fee, and thus your entire business starts being threatened as readers decide to go where the content is.

All because you gave a cheap plastic headset a 5 out of 10. Because it was a cheap plastic headset.

So, if you were in charge of a magazine or website, and had to decide between firing the people you work with, who have lives, kids, mortgages, or telling them "listen, just ease up on the negativity, try to find the positive", obviously people would be in two minds over which path to take.

Granted, this is just one example of one business model. But as long as the business model involves interaction with a publisher in *any way*, this is the fight that will always exist. Unless you *really* luck out and manage to get in bed with publishers who would never, ever, cut your advertising just because you said their million dollar game is crap, thus making them lose millions in sales.

 

[unbias]

All press that involves products has this problem, not just the gaming press. We're just focused on the gaming press at the moment, because this is a gaming forum. Magazines/websites that cover cellphones, cars, electronics in general, etc - they all have the issue of editorial being influenced by PR.

Eventually this issue will expand as people realize that their favorite YouTube celebrities, for example, may be sent a nice video card or a free copy of a game, and because they're not "press", just some dude in a room that likes to talk about the games they play, somehow that's okay.

Yes, but most of those industry have investigative journalism, outside of those press junket mags and websites. There really is not industry press that holds band business practices in the game industry to task(some of it might be that the people in the developer side of the industry are masochists). Obviously not as much investigative journalism goes on as there should, but still a lot better then this industry.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Whose review can I trust now?

They should make a Watch-Dogs-esque game about this premise.

 

[Cyrano]

Reputation risk assessment is a very big thing with publicly traded companies. Sure the game industry focus way to heavy on crisis assessments, instead, but perception of a companies reputation, when public, can and does effect stocks. The game industry is just bad at both of these, but reputation risk management is important to them to, just probably less so, since there isnt as much of a light on the practices of game companies.

Never intended to deny that, but most game companies are privately held, and even the large ones often tend to be owned by conglomerates anymore, such that the games section is just an arm of a larger software/hardware group. They also tend to be... relatively, small arms (insert weird joke about arms and weapons here).

I do not think they are so stupid as to not realize how something might reflect on the company, but I do think that frequently the company is far more enamored with short-term attention and short-term gains. Which may also be why videogame companies tend to be some of the historically shortest lived and have some of the most precipitous falls. I think a lot of this is a result of companies never really adjusting to the level of success they've found.

 

[Lalalandia]

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's not that the gift would raise the score, but rather, your refusal to "play the game" as it were would start impacting your relationships with the publishers, or your editor's relationships with the publishers. You give the game a 6.5 but take the gift. The publisher labels you as "untrustworthy" or "not a team player" and you stop getting invited to events. Eventually, all your bridges are burned (unfairly, mind you), and you're pretty much useless to most outlets, unless you have a *very* specific skill or personality, or have built up a worthwhile cult of personality that you can coast on.

Publishers are basically trying to determine the rules of the game, ones that if you don't play by, make you unable to continue working in the toxic industry they're creating. It's fine and dandy to say "well, I would never bow to their crap" and a lot of people say exactly that. But that *pressure* remains, and it does impact a great deal of the enthusiast press, even if they don't realize it.

If writing about video games isn't your livelihood, it's easy to be flippant. But if it's your career and your next paycheck is determined by those bridges, it can colour a person's opinions. You'll notice that people who don't directly interact with publishers, like people who do Let's Plays or such, who get money from ambient advertising, are usually far more critical and negative about things - right up until they join a network or get sponsored. Then they suddenly stop being so critical, unless that's their shtick and the basis of their cult of personality.

Very nicely put.

If gamers don't make noise about this stuff it places those journalists who do object to these practices in a very awkward place when they speak up about it. It's much better for them if they can say 'My audience won't tolerate this I can't accept it' than 'I feel uncomfortable with this'.

 

[shysaursoft]

Yes, but most of those industry have investigative journalism, outside of those press junket mags and websites. There really is not industry press that holds band business practices in the game industry to task(some of it might be that the people in the developer side of the industry are masochists). Obviously not as much investigative journalism goes on as there should, but still a lot better then this industry.

I agree, the gaming journalism industry still needs to mature a heck of a lot, and evolve the same kinds of investigative / gonzo journalism that lets other journalist industries maintain a bid for legitimacy in spite of their own bad apples. I think it's a matter of time, though. The current form of video game writing is still young, especially compared to music and film. I think people may be a bit impatient, or too eager to have it be "legitimate".

As I said earlier in the thread, even here on NeoGAF there are many who admit they won't let people know in public, or at work, that they play games. The consumers are still too ashamed of their hobby. It's hard to fault the gaming press for still being immature and full of faults, in this climate. Not that I'm saying they're above (or below) reproach for their actions, far from it.

But already we're seeing a lot of decent investigative journalism coming out of places like Polygon, Kill Switch and so on, so there's the start of it at least. Though one person's "good journalism" is another person's "shill piece", so public opinion can muddy the waters, frustratingly.

 

[Neuro]

Big deal...its only for 200 quid, you should see some of the stuff Microsoft does before it launches its games

I particularly remember the Halo E3 behind closed doors event which they held in a super fancy hotel and booked an entire floor for the journos for 2 nights or so with all the frills put in

Sony does it too, EA too....I remember them giving away a super expensive Razer mouse for the original Crysis preview a couple of years ago...

 

[Cyrano]

I agree, the gaming journalism industry still needs to mature a heck of a lot, and evolve the same kinds of investigative / gonzo journalism that lets other journalist industries maintain a bid for legitimacy in spite of their own bad apples. I think it's a matter of time, though. The current form of video game writing is still young, especially compared to music and film. I think people may be a bit impatient, or too eager to have it be "legitimate".

Well, two things need to happen for this to work.
1) There need to be some games worth writing about. Effectively, the issue is that most games don't have a message worth talking/writing about.
2) Developers need to be more concerned about the message, and it needs to override the current trend of "getting the game functional and out the door."

There really isn't a lot to say about a functional game.

 

[……forgetit]

As someone who studied journalism for a bit, yes this is bribery, i've met some Damn good journalist and none of them would have accepting things like this.

 

[Lalalandia]

Big deal...its only for 200 quid, you should see some of the stuff Microsoft does before it launches its games

I particularly remember the Halo E3 behind closed doors event which they held in a super fancy hotel and booked an entire floor for the journos for 2 nights or so with all the frills put in

Sony does it too, EA too....I remember them giving away a super expensive Razer mouse for the original Crysis preview a couple of years ago...

So because there are other examples of bad behaviour that excuses this one or is a reason to ignore it? There has been a change for the better in this area over the last few years but if we start letting these slide by because it's not as bad as it used to be, how do we make it better?

Ubisoft already said this was a limited thing just for UK journalists and have committed to not doing it again, if EA or Sony or MS or whoever start offering other substantial $200 value gifts I'll be complaining about that too. You may see a $200 tablet as a nominal gift but it most certainly is not something that could be given to say a public official by a vendor tendering for business.

 

[Averon]

Big deal...its only for 200 quid, you should see some of the stuff Microsoft does before it launches its games

I particularly remember the Halo E3 behind closed doors event which they held in a super fancy hotel and booked an entire floor for the journos for 2 nights or so with all the frills put in

Sony does it too, EA too....I remember them giving away a super expensive Razer mouse for the original Crysis preview a couple of years ago...

Excusing bad behavior now because it was worse previously is asinine. Hell, the fact that bad behavior has been reduced over the years only strengthens the position that we shouldn't let up on this.

 

[unbias]

Well, two things need to happen for this to work.
1) There need to be some games worth writing about. Effectively, the issue is that most games don't have a message worth talking/writing about.
2) Developers need to be more concerned about the message, and it needs to override the current trend of "getting the game functional and out the door."

There really isn't a lot to say about a functional game.

I would love more stuff like this: http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/188671/game_developer_qualityoflife_.php?page=3

Where they talk more about the working conditions, environment, and the politics all around. Kinda like they do with financial news. Probably not a huge market for it I'm guessing, among the gaming crowed, considering the demand isnt really being met.

 

[orochi91]

ryan mccaffrey makes me nauseous. ign are the biggest bunch of console fanboys i've ever seen. the staff worship anything yoshida or spencer say.

I'm willing to give the PS crew on IGN a pass, simply because those people have got
concern trolling down to an art form. They tore the PS3 apart on numerous occasions
throughout last gen, despite being IGN's Playstation "faction". They are vocal about
any disdain they have with PS3/4 or Sony's approach to the platforms.

The Xbox crew, spearheaded by Ryan, are incredibly tame in any form of criticism
against the Xbox brand whenever I used to listen to them back in the day. Their bias
is ludicrous, especially during the whole XB1 DRM and 720p/1080p fiasco.

 

[Htown]

That's why all these sites and reviewers are so corru... oh wait.

There are tons of journalist who get the pony show and it doesn't sway them at all. It's amazing how many people in this thread just assume everyone is corrupt because they get paid hotels, lavish press kits or shitty tablets. Why is it OK for them to get free games to review but not other things? Why is that ok? Why is ok for them to get special treatment in these backroom showings? That much give some sway. Surly they are swayed by those free coach sections plane tickets to go on that sweet vacation where they spend 99.99% of the time in a hotel room watching someone play a game, playing the game yourself on some occasions and writing up a preview.

Man i would be throwing out 10/10's all over.

It's funny that you think these big publishers are spending all that money on this stuff for nothing.

Or do you think Ubisoft is running a charity?

They know that this stuff makes a difference, even if it's on a level that the person receiving the gift may not even be conscious of.

Don't be so naive.

 

[Spinluck]

lol

RIP integrity.

 

[Cyrano]

I would love more stuff like this: http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/188671/game_developer_qualityoflife_.php?page=3

Where they talk more about the working conditions, environment, and the politics all around. Kinda like they do with financial news. Probably not a huge market for it I'm guessing, among the gaming crowed, considering the demand isnt really being met.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the facelessness of working on games. Not a lot of Spielbergs and Rowlings in the game industry. Though maybe part of this is also that directors don't tend to have the level of freedom in videogames that they're given in movies or that producers are given in music.

I think that the lack of interest in retrospective thinking of gaming audiences does point towards a trend of videogames being seen as throwaway entertainment. Which is... unfortunate, to say the least.

 

[Htown]

I mean seriously, these are companies that will nickel and dime the shit out of you the consumer on some DLC, charging you for the tiniest thing, ripping out content and putting it back in later, etc.

You really think they're giving this shit away to journalists and not expecting to get something out of it?

 

[The_Lump]

Hahaha, perfect.

I was just going to post somthing about happily taking the swag but not letting it cloud your opinion (its not like they can take it back, right?) Journo's that let themselves get bribed are as bad as those doing the bribing, after all.

 

[Htown]

Hahaha, perfect.

I was just going to post somthing about happily taking the swag but not letting it cloud your opinion (its not like they can take it back, right?) Journo's that let themselves get bribed are as bad as those doing the bribing, after all.

That's not the way the human mind works, sorry.

This stuff has an effect, whether you want it to or not.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's funny that you think these big publishers are spending all that money on this stuff for nothing.

Or do you think Ubisoft is running a charity?

They know that this stuff makes a difference, even if it's on a level that the person receiving the gift may not even be conscious of.

Don't be so naive.

I think you're being kind of silly when you assume the PR people are choosing these five star resorts where game reviewers never see more of the resort or the fantastic foreign city than their hotel room and the bar for any other reason than it's way for the PR people to get an awesome working vacation.

 

[Kikarian]

My company's code of conduct tells us that we are not allowed to accept any gifts (including expensive dinners) that could seem like an attempt to influence. This is how it should be, clean ethical, leaves little room for misinterpretation. This is a big company listed on the stock exchange, but I see very few reasons for why even journalists with limited business impact shouldn't follow the same type of ethics code.

Yeah many businesses run of this model. I fail to see why games journalism doesn't apply them ethics.

 

[unbias]

I think you're being kind of silly when you assume the PR people are choosing these five star resorts where game reviewers never see more of the resort or the fantastic foreign city than their hotel room and the bar for any other reason than it's way for the PR people to get an awesome working vacation.

I think it's silly that you think PR has so much control over budget that they can choose exactly where the money is spent on PR. They(PR) wouldnt be allowed to keep doing it if it didnt have a rate of return tha they(Their bosses) found acceptable.

 

[Htown]

I think you're being kind of silly when you assume the PR people are choosing these five star resorts where game reviewers never see more of the resort or the fantastic foreign city than their hotel room and the bar for any other reason than it's way for the PR people to get an awesome working vacation.

I think you're being silly if you think all this nonsense gets justified in marketing/PR budgets for no reason.

 

[jschreier]

Hahaha, perfect.

I was just going to post somthing about happily taking the swag but not letting it cloud your opinion (its not like they can take it back, right?) Journo's that let themselves get bribed are as bad as those doing the bribing, after all.

Avoiding the appearance of impropriety can be just as important for a reporter as avoiding impropriety.

 

[The_Lump]

That's not the way the human mind works, sorry.

This stuff has an effect, whether you want it to or not.

Well it's the way my mind works. And I'm human If someone was blatantly trying to sway my opinion I'd go out of my way to be as impartial as possible. If I found I couldn't do that then I simply wouldn't be a journalist anymore.

I'm not saying this practice is in any way acceptable, you understand. I'm just saying the journalists aren't innocent bystanders being corrupted by the despicable corporate machine. They're as culpable if they allow these 'gifts' to sway them. I don't care how hard it is to resist.

Avoiding the appearance of impropriety can be just as important for a reporter as avoiding impropriety.

Of course. As per my 2nd paragraph above - I don't agree with this practice at all. I was just pointing out that I was about to post something along the lines of the picture quoted (about taking the swag and saying the game was shit anyway)

 

[Aesius]

Wow, I should become a journalist

No....no you shouldn't.

 

[unbias]

Well it's the way my mind works. And I'm human If someone was blatantly trying to sway my opinion I'd go out of my way to be impartial as possible. If I found I couldn't do that then I simply wouldn't be a journalist anymore.

I'm not saying this practice is in any way acceptable, you understand. I'm just saying the journalists aren't innocent bystanders being corrupted by the despicable corporate machine. They're as culpable if they allow these 'gifts' to sway them. I don't care how hard it is to resist.

Problem is, there isn't really any real fallout from game press persons accepting these things. The publisher is apologizing for making the game journalists look bad... kinda off putting that it seems the onus of not taking "gifts" from companies, who's products you review and recommend is more so on the publisher and not the press.

 

[The_Lump]

Problem is, there isn't really any real fallout from game press persons accepting these things. The publisher is apologizing for making the game journalists look bad... kinda off putting that it seems the onus of not taking "gifts" from companies, who's products you review and recommend is more so on the onus of the publisher and not the press.

Indeed. It's the people accepting the gifts as much as it is those offering it. The whole system is pretty f*cked at this point.

 

[Messofanego]

Hahaha, perfect.

I was just going to post somthing about happily taking the swag but not letting it cloud your opinion (its not like they can take it back, right?) Journo's that let themselves get bribed are as bad as those doing the bribing, after all.

He bought the tablet for himself a while ago, just a joke.

Also, lol: