Support NeoGAF

[Messofanego]

The problem is, games journalism is full of people who would like to use it as an entrance into the games industry.

This isn't as much the case with their music, film and book counterparts. We don't have that many people who go into games journalism for the sole reason of journalism. Even "I like games. I like to write." isn't great when you compare them to prominent film and music critics.

Back in the day, French new wave filmmakers came out of the film critic business because they were annoyed with the state of films of that time. There is precedent. It's not as much for sure, but I'm not versed in book or music industries.

 

[Lalalandia]

The only thing that I would be unethical is the reviewer giving false praise b/c they got a free phone.If you think game reviewers getting to keep the phones they demoed the game on is as significant as the topics you listed above , then fine but I don't. I am not dismissing all whistle blowers. There is a reason why this story would never hit main stream media. Who is getting hurt.We are talking about opinions here not facts. If a gamer doesn't know that these reviews are not facts then I don't feel bad for them. I would be more concerned with reviewers giving bad scores b/c they did not get special treatment, being that it could mean peoples jobs.
I only ask game makers to make good games and to not penny pinch . The only thing that I would be unethical is the reviewer giving false praise b/c they got a free phone.

The problem is that it's hard to identify straight up 'Give me dollah for score' moments instead the issue slides into that grey area where this stuff works.

As an example I go to a preview event, meet the developers, have a good talk, later we share dinner and a few drinks. The game was a bit wobbly but my new 'friends' Bob and Sherry are really excited and passionate about this project and assure me that the code I was playing was a few steps behind the current development code and they were on top of it. A few weeks pass and the review code arrives, I play it and I see the same issues or even new issues, so I call Bob and Sherry and ask about this, they assure me that it's totally fixed in the day one patch, now what do I do?

The straight forward thing to do is mark the game you received and maybe note the promise of a day one patch let's say that's score is a 7. Of course I'm in the industry I know what a score of 7 means to a developer being aware of the FallOut New Vegas bullshit. I like Bob and Sherry and we had such a good time discussing the industry and weird foibles like review scores and the perverse way they feed into games. Am I going to risk their jobs by giving that 7? Maybe I'll trust to faith and move to an 8, it's not dishonest as I liked the game and if they fix the bugs with the patch they promised it is an 8/10 so I'm not even lying. Of course the game ships,the patch doesn't fix the bugs or introduces new ones but that doesn't even mean Bob and Sherry are liars perhaps the bugs were new or from an area they're not involved in.

Maybe I don't talk to Bob and Sherry maybe my relationship is strictly business like with the PR, I have the exact same experience as outlined above so I call Jeoe the PR. Joe assures me that the bugs are fixed and that I can give that 8/10 (he jokes and say 10/10, what a card). If I don't give that 8/10 and the patch does fix all the issues will Joe take offence and not send me those press releases on time? Will the plane be full up for the next chance to interview Bob and Sherry? I live and die on clicks if Joe thinks I'm awkward and I'm not from a major site what is the incentive for him to work with me?

This is the social pressure, undue influence, 'too closeness' call it what you may but it is the dominant form of corruption and why bodies that have rules to limit undue influence would not tolerate most of what happens in game PR. We know what not courting undue influence looks like, the FCPA is a great resource for this, and this does not look like that even before you give out free Nexus 7s.

 

[woen]

Ubisoft France's response (here in french, translation is mine)

"During a recent event where a few journalists were allowed to discover Watch Dogs, bags (with a tablet where were videos, screenshots and bookmarks linked to the official website) was offered to the british journalists present at this event.
We would like to point out that it is a local initiative and no other journalists than the british received one of this bags. It is absolutely not our way to work with journalists who give coverage to our games and we well understand that this kind of gifts could be misinterpreted. We are deeply sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

 

[Lalalandia]

Robert Cialdini is probably the most regarded figure who's done studies about this. He identifies six pillars of persuasion: Reciprocation, Social Proof, Commitment and Consistency, Liking and Scarcity.

Here's a quick intro to these concepts (non-academic article):

http://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/E_Brand_principles.pdf

As for specific experiments looking at gifts and professionals. I'm sure they're out there, I think I've heard people reference some but can't think of any examples I can currently link. If someone knows some specific ones I would like to see them as well.

Nice link, thanks very much!

 

[RedNumberFive]

Back in the day, French new wave filmmakers came out of the film critic business because they were annoyed with the state of films of that time. There is precedent. It's not as much for sure, but I'm not versed in book or music industries.

I think it's a bit unfair to draw a comparison between Jean-Luc Goddard and Arthur Gies.

 

[Lalalandia]

Ubisoft France's response (here in french, translation is mine)

"During a recent event where a few journalists were allowed to discover Watch Dogs, bags (with a tablet where were videos, screenshots and bookmarks linked to the official website) was offered to the british journalists present at this event.
We would like to point out that it is a local initiative and no other journalists than the british received one of this bags. It is absolutely not our way to work with journalists who give coverage to our games and we well understand that this kind of gifts could be misinterpreted. We are deeply sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

Those damned Ros-Bifs!

Very unusual for one region of a company to so forcefully throw another under the bus though.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Here's a paper that studies the timing of gifts a bank gives and their effects on deposit balance and customer satisfaction:

http://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/Its_Not_What_You_Get.pdf

ABSTRACT

The impact of gifts on deposit balances and customer satisfaction was examined in a
longitudinal field experiment conducted at a commercial bank. Gifts increased deposit balances,
survey response rates, and customer satisfaction compared to the no-gift control. Several factors
were manipulated within the gift treatment: gift type, the accompanying message, and the
sequence of gift value, which was either improving ($35 then $100 gift), worsening ($100 then
$35 gift), or a single gift. There was a highly detrimental effect of decreasing gift value on
deposit balances. This “deterioration aversion” persisted in a long-term follow-up analysis of
deposit balances. A vignette experiment replicated deterioration aversion and extended the
results, demonstrating increased effectiveness of improving gifts over constant gift sequences,
and finding that the mechanism underlying deterioration aversion involves the violation of
expectations.

Here's a an article about the effects of drug company gifts on the prescribing habits of doctors:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/morreim/prescribing.html

When you ask doctors whether this kind of drug marketing is effective, the answer is always the same: "It doesn’t influence me at all. They’re not going to buy my soul with a laser pointer." In a recent syndicated newspaper column, one doctor commented, "I blame the pin-striped MBAs, who mistakenly believe that physicians are going to prescribe certain medicines because the company plies them with pens."

A recent letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association illustrates how effective drug advertising can be. It describes a patient who came into the hospital with an infected insect bite. The intern who first saw the patient first sensibly wanted to prescribe a nice, inexpensive penicillin, which is the drug of choice for a minor infection. But the resident overruled the intern and favored a more "modern" choice for this "severely" ill patient. He decided the patient had to have a brand-new antibiotic…at $183 a day.

The attending physician who supervised the house officers checked into the incident. It turned out the resident had just been wined and dined by the drug representative whose company made the new antibiotic. Think marketing doesn’t do any good? Think again.
The evidence is not just anecdotal. In a classic 1982 study, researchers explored physicians’ perceptions of two medications where there was a distinct discrepancy between what the company was touting as the virtues of the drug and what the science said.

 

[Orayn]

http://kotaku.com/5416788/reviewing-a-game-on-their-terms-the-increasingly-prominent-review-event
http://kotaku.com/5939030/this-is-the-300-chess-street-fighter-chess-set-capcom-sent-me-today

Have you changed your policies lately?

Maybe you have and that's why Kotaku now mostly reposts unsourced material from GAF and other blogs with loud, unskippable video ads on each pageload.

The first article is over four years old and the second is asking readers for suggestions on how to get rid of the chess set.

 

[shysaursoft]

I think it's a bit unfair to draw a comparison between Jean-Luc Goddard and Arthur Gies.

I'm sure there were plenty of Arthur Gies types in that same bucket, but we just don't hear about them as much. Lack of Twitter back in the day, I'd bet.

 

[SpyGuy239]

I'll leave the opinions on Bribery to everyone else.

But IMHO, that was quite an appropriate presskit considering it IS watchdogs we're talking about!

 

[Kuldar]

edit: woen was quicker

Ubisoft France's response (here in french, translation is mine)

"During a recent event where a few journalists were allowed to discover Watch Dogs, bags (with a tablet where were videos, screenshots and bookmarks linked to the official website) was offered to the british journalists present at this event.
We would like to point out that it is a local initiative and no other journalists than the british received one of this bags. It is absolutely not our way to work with journalists who give coverage to our games and we well understand that this kind of gifts could be misinterpreted. We are deeply sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. "

 

[Haunted]

They got caught red-handed.

 

[jschreier]

The problem is that it's hard to identify straight up 'Give me dollah for score' moments instead the issue slides into that grey area where this stuff works.

As an example I go to a preview event, meet the developers, have a good talk, later we share dinner and a few drinks. The game was a bit wobbly but my new 'friends' Bob and Sherry are really excited and passionate about this project and assure me that the code I was playing was a few steps behind the current development code and they were on top of it. A few weeks pass and the review code arrives, I play it and I see the same issues or even new issues, so I call Bob and Sherry and ask about this, they assure me that it's totally fixed in the day one patch, now what do I do?

The straight forward thing to do is mark the game you received and maybe note the promise of a day one patch let's say that's score is a 7. Of course I'm in the industry I know what a score of 7 means to a developer being aware of the FallOut New Vegas bullshit. I like Bob and Sherry and we had such a good time discussing the industry and weird foibles like review scores and the perverse way they feed into games. Am I going to risk their jobs by giving that 7? Maybe I'll trust to faith and move to an 8, it's not dishonest as I liked the game and if they fix the bugs with the patch they promised it is an 8/10 so I'm not even lying. Of course the game ships,the patch doesn't fix the bugs or introduces new ones but that doesn't even mean Bob and Sherry are liars perhaps the bugs were new or from an area they're not involved in.

Maybe I don't talk to Bob and Sherry maybe my relationship is strictly business like with the PR, I have the exact same experience as outlined above so I call Jeoe the PR. Joe assures me that the bugs are fixed and that I can give that 8/10 (he jokes and say 10/10, what a card). If I don't give that 8/10 and the patch does fix all the issues will Joe take offence and not send me those press releases on time? Will the plane be full up for the next chance to interview Bob and Sherry? I live and die on clicks if Joe thinks I'm awkward and I'm not from a major site what is the incentive for him to work with me?

This is the social pressure, undue influence, 'too closeness' call it what you may but it is the dominant form of corruption and why bodies that have rules to limit undue influence would not tolerate most of what happens in game PR. We know what not courting undue influence looks like, the FCPA is a great resource for this, and this does not look like that before you give out free Nexus 7s.

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.

 

[BRocknRolla]

This industry is rife with bullshit. I fear a day will never come what there is a critical mass of honest journalists who actually want to be "journalists." As it stands, clicks, personalities, brands, and interindustry relationships take precedence over getting proper reporting done 95% of the time. It's a real shame. (And I can't even imagine trying to be one of those actual, honest reporters in this type of environment.)

 

[shysaursoft]

This industry is rife with bullshit. I fear a day will never come what there is a critical mass of honest journalists who actually want to be "journalists." As it stands, clicks, personalities, brands, and interindustry relationships take precedence over getting proper reporting done 95% of the time. It's a real shame. (And I can't even imagine trying to be one of those actual, honest reporters in this type of environment.)

So... just like 24-hour news channels? Yes, it does suck right now, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't the answer either. There are plenty of writers who do care about what they write, and about integrity, even in the enthusiast gaming press. Why not focus on and support those people, instead of lumping them in with everyone and writing the whole thing off?

 

[Orayn]

The problem is that it's hard to identify straight up 'Give me dollah for score' moments instead the issue slides into that grey area where this stuff works.

As an example I go to a preview event, meet the developers, have a good talk, later we share dinner and a few drinks. The game was a bit wobbly but my new 'friends' Bob and Sherry are really excited and passionate about this project and assure me that the code I was playing was a few steps behind the current development code and they were on top of it. A few weeks pass and the review code arrives, I play it and I see the same issues or even new issues, so I call Bob and Sherry and ask about this, they assure me that it's totally fixed in the day one patch, now what do I do?

The straight forward thing to do is mark the game you received and maybe note the promise of a day one patch let's say that's score is a 7.

That's where this should end. Period. You review and score (ugh) the game as-received with the information available at the time of writing the review, and your feelings about the devs, possible consequences of the score, blah blah blah can all go to hell.

The fact that these kinds of stories don't end there is a major contributor to people not trusting the enthusiast press.

 

[Zero-Crescent]

http://kotaku.com/5416788/reviewing-a-game-on-their-terms-the-increasingly-prominent-review-event
http://kotaku.com/5939030/this-is-the-300-chess-street-fighter-chess-set-capcom-sent-me-today

Have you changed your policies lately?

Maybe you have and that's why Kotaku now mostly reposts unsourced material from GAF and other blogs with loud, unskippable video ads on each pageload.

Sooooo, did you read the links before posting them? Because if you did, you would realize that you just proved jschreier's point for him. Besides being from 2009, the first article clearly states that the trip was paid for by Kotaku's parent company, and in the second one, Totilo clearly states that he declined the review event offer and was asking the audience what he should do with the unsolicited chess set. If you want to play the Gotcha Game, then try finding actual gotchas, please.

 

[BRocknRolla]

So... just like 24-hour news channels? Yes, it does suck right now, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't the answer either. There are plenty of writers who do care about what they write, and about integrity, even in the enthusiast gaming press. Why not focus on and support those people, instead of lumping them in with everyone and writing the whole thing off?

I never said network news was a proper model. I never said we should get rid of games journalism. I said I feared good journalism may never be the norm. What I wrote clearly states that I know there are people who care and I feel for those people trying to make it in this industry. I don't understand how this is even responsive to what I wrote.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

GTAIV was shady for different reasons though, it was the first time I recall hearing of reviewers being sequestered in a hotel all weekend with PR breathing down their necks while playing the game.

It was happening before that. mGS4 comes to
mind and I distinctly remember GameFan mentioning in their Goldeneye 64 review way back in '97 that it was a controlled environment and they were given a few hours with the game before it was locked back up in a briefcase and taken away.


Also lol @ Ubi France's spin. It's 2014 and you couldn't think of a better and easier way to get media to the press other than on a $200 tablet?

 

[SolidusDave]

No it isn't. Scientific studies have been done to measure how much professionals are influenced by gifts etc. This happens even to doctors with years and years of education who can be swayed by pretty women and free cans of soda pop. To think that free items, trips, and expensive tablets have no impact on your coverage is conveniently naive. The reason these investments are made is that they work.

Yeah, this doesn't work in the sense of "you get this tablet, so give our game a good score" (these kind of deals are reserved for first coverage rights etc. ), anyone can see through that and this might even induce the opposite reaction.
But we know how our brain ticks in this regard.
The point is to create a positive situation/emotion that your brain will intuitively connect to whatever there is. The positive feedback will subtly condition your brain to think more positively about the source of that feedback. Doesn't even have to be the game itself, can be the company in general. It's not something you're supposed to realize/notice.

 

[Darryl M R]

This wasn't a way for the journalists to see how a tablet can interact with the game? I don't think they will just get all 10s now.

 

[Lalalandia]

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.

It must be particularly galling then to have Metacritic decide what your score out of ten is for you, an awful, ugly practice IMO.

How close is too close to be able to give an 'objective' opinion on art is the unanswerable question and has been argued up and down for centuries. I probably strayed off topic though as we started discussing a $200 device in a press pack rather than the personal relationships that form on press trips.

For me the $200 device represents a financial pressure on top of the social pressures formed from meeting developers. If this sort of things starts to happen on a semi regular basis maybe I start to rely on regifting these things so I can relieve pressure on my budget at holidays or I see how much fun my kid is having with and so it starts to rub off on the company that gave it to me. It's a complexity and pressure that shouldn't have been added to what is already a complex situation for a journalist to work with. Take the person who is giving it to charity, they clearly felt it was inappropriate but may have been worried that objecting would land them in the 'awkward squad' and put at risk future trips.

 

[shysaursoft]

I don't understand how this is even responsive to what I wrote.

My bad. I think I took the tone of your post wrong. It was the "I fear a day will never come" that sounded kind of defeatist to me, like as if you thought the whole industry is just a waste of time now.

Though, has a "critical mass of honest journalists who actually want to be journalists" actually ever happened? If you had to take all of magazine writing as a whole, or film and music writing, there's never really been a critical mass of "honest journalists". Just, honest ones that stand out as being different from the average.

 

[chickdigger802]

i do find it interesting that GB seems to be quite chill with many in the industry yet their 5 point scale makes it near impossible to get over an '85' on metacritic (unless you can get brad to review it!).

maybe people can just be friends?

 

[Teletraan1]

Why not blame the publishers handing this shit out as obvious bribes? Everyone in this industry is crying poor as they get Maclemore to do their launch event while they hand out tablets to everyone.

I can't put any more energy into blaming some lol gamez jurnalist who has 4 roommates in a 1 bedroom apt in San Francisco who are in a system they can't change sans getting a new job. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that reviews mean nothing to me since I can't actually trust their validity. Even if no money exchanges hands there is far too much fanboyism to take any of it seriously. It is a terrible ecosystem. Hopefully it matures to be something legit down the road.

 

[emag]

Sooooo, did you read the links before posting them? Because if you did, you would realize that you just proved jschreier's point for him. Besides being from 2009, the first article clearly states that the trip was paid for by Kotaku's parent company, and in the second one, Totilo clearly states that he declined the review event offer and was asking the audience what he should do with the unsolicited chess set. If you want to play the Gotcha Game, then try finding actual gotchas, please.

Activision and Infinity Ward shouldered the cost of hotel rooms—including ours... It also paid for the meal we enjoyed at the aforementioned fancy restaurant.

And trading those expensive gifts with coworkers hardly constitutes refusing them.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Why not blame the publishers handing this shit out as obvious bribes? Everyone in this industry is crying poor as they get Maclemore to do their launch event while they hand out tablets to everyone.

I can't put any more energy into blaming some lol gamez jurnalist who has 4 roommates in a 1 bedroom apt in San Francisco who are in a system they can't change sans getting a new job. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that reviews mean nothing to me since I can't actually trust their validity. Even if no money exchanges hands there is far too much fanboyism to take any of it seriously. It is a terrible ecosystem. Hopefully it matures to be something legit down the road.

Because the journalists are supposed to be the buffer between the pubs and us. The publishers have a responsibility to their shareholders. The journalist has a responsibility to his/her readers .

 

[bj00rn_]

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.

 

[JABEE]

That's where this should end. Period. You review and score (ugh) the game as-received with the information available at the time of writing the review, and your feelings about the devs, possible consequences of the score, blah blah blah can all go to hell.

The fact that these kinds of stories don't end there is a major contributor to people not trusting the enthusiast press.

I think this where issues come in. Humans are swayed by friendships and social interactions. I don't think these kinds of things are as seriously questioned within the gaming industry as they are at places like Kotaku. If taking gifts is still a fight with outlets, these kinds of subtle influences are probably not even on the radar.

 

[shysaursoft]

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 why even journalists with limited business impact shouldn't follow the same type of ethics code.

I do have to wonder though: does that mean you think your company, from top to bottom, and all people that work for it, is 100% free of corruption or outside influence?

My point is, even if corporate rules disallow certain types of influence through conventional means, all that does is shift the influence into more unconventional channels or to areas so behind the scenes they're not found yet, until the eventual corruption/bribery charges. There are far more devious ways of buying influence in corporate politics than just giving swag.

 

[caleb1915]

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

my...god...


I dont think this is necessarily a huge problem....maybe something worse could be caused by this pseudobribe.

 

[Orayn]

I think this where issues come in. Humans are swayed by friendships and social interactions. I don't think these kinds of things are as seriously questioned within the gaming industry as they are at places like Kotaku. If taking gifts is still a fight with outlets, these kinds of subtle influences are probably not even on the radar.

The fact that it's so difficult to separate yourself from possible sources of bias makes it all the more important to actually do it. As it stands, most people aren't even putting forth a token effort.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

The greatest bribery in this industry was those GTA4 reviews.

Beautifully done Rockstar.

What happened with GTA4? I agree the reviews are ridiculous but I can't remember any bribery

 

[zoukka]

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

 

[biggersmaller]

I have a big problem with the gaming press being referred to as "journalists" and discourage levying such standards on any writer with a gaming/entertainment/automotive beat. Their financial reliance on publishers is 100%, so $600 in electronics is hardly watergate.

 

[jschreier]

I think this where issues come in. Humans are swayed by friendships and social interactions. I don't think these kinds of things are as seriously questioned within the gaming industry as they are at places like Kotaku. If taking gifts is still a fight with outlets, these kinds of subtle influences are probably not even on the radar.

People are certainly discussing this stuff more than they were even two years ago, and readers are more cynical, which I think is a very good thing. Journalists seem to be quicker to call sketchy practices out these days, too. The fact that Ubisoft responded and publicly apologized could make other game publishers think twice before trying to pull this sort of stuff in the future. The landscape is getting better, and has been for a while.

 

[infinityBCRT]

B) if you're a critic in this vein either your employer should be providing you the appropriate hardware to do your job or, if you freelance, you should be writing it off as an expense on your taxes. What you shouldn't be doing is taking gifts.

Like the free games they also get? Or in some cases, free consoles or debug kits?

Cmon, don't be delusional. When someone is a critic, they are well within their right to take products that they will be reviewing or that will help them review a game. 99.99% of reviewers are doing some amount of that, whether or not they take tablets. They'll take the games, they'll take the DLC, they'll take hardware, etc. Are we going to imply that Sony bribed members of the gaming press when they invited them to NYC and gave out PS4s?

 

[styl3s]

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

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.

 

[akidnamededdy]

People are certainly discussing this stuff more than they were even two years ago, and readers are more cynical, which I think is a very good thing. Journalists seem to be quicker to call sketchy practices out these days, too. The fact that Ubisoft responded and publicly apologized could make other game publishers think twice before trying to pull this sort of stuff in the future. The landscape is getting better, and has been for a while.

I dunno...what you see as "getting better," I see as only more transparent corruption. Which I guess IS better in that it's just more obvious how busted mainstream games journalism is, but that doesn't make it any less busted.

Stuff like this is why GAF is the only bookmark in my gaming folder now.

 

[Orayn]

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.

It's not a binary switch between "completely corrupt" and "legitimate," it's a gradual loss of trust that comes from a variety of sources.

When we hear about this stuff, it's usually something that happened behind closed doors, which is more than enough justification for people to be cynical and suspicious by default.

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.

Who says I'm okay with any of that? Plenty of people aren't.

 

[Kikujiro]

Back in the day, French new wave filmmakers came out of the film critic business because they were annoyed with the state of films of that time. There is precedent. It's not as much for sure, but I'm not versed in book or music industries.

Your comparison is completely wrong. French New wave filmmakers didn't use their position (as film critics) as an entrance to the film industry, in fact they were against the existing rules of the film industry and they wanted to change the old rules by making groundbreaking movies. Not only that, but it was the first major movement of independent cinema. How on earth is this the same as an IGN journalist getting a job at Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo?

 

[Hellshy.]

The problem is that it's hard to identify straight up 'Give me dollah for score' moments instead the issue slides into that grey area where this stuff works.

As an example I go to a preview event, meet the developers, have a good talk, later we share dinner and a few drinks. The game was a bit wobbly but my new 'friends' Bob and Sherry are really excited and passionate about this project and assure me that the code I was playing was a few steps behind the current development code and they were on top of it. A few weeks pass and the review code arrives, I play it and I see the same issues or even new issues, so I call Bob and Sherry and ask about this, they assure me that it's totally fixed in the day one patch, now what do I do?

The straight forward thing to do is mark the game you received and maybe note the promise of a day one patch let's say that's score is a 7. Of course I'm in the industry I know what a score of 7 means to a developer being aware of the FallOut New Vegas bullshit. I like Bob and Sherry and we had such a good time discussing the industry and weird foibles like review scores and the perverse way they feed into games. Am I going to risk their jobs by giving that 7? Maybe I'll trust to faith and move to an 8, it's not dishonest as I liked the game and if they fix the bugs with the patch they promised it is an 8/10 so I'm not even lying. Of course the game ships,the patch doesn't fix the bugs or introduces new ones but that doesn't even mean Bob and Sherry are liars perhaps the bugs were new or from an area they're not involved in.

Maybe I don't talk to Bob and Sherry maybe my relationship is strictly business like with the PR, I have the exact same experience as outlined above so I call Jeoe the PR. Joe assures me that the bugs are fixed and that I can give that 8/10 (he jokes and say 10/10, what a card). If I don't give that 8/10 and the patch does fix all the issues will Joe take offence and not send me those press releases on time? Will the plane be full up for the next chance to interview Bob and Sherry? I live and die on clicks if Joe thinks I'm awkward and I'm not from a major site what is the incentive for him to work with me?

This is the social pressure, undue influence, 'too closeness' call it what you may but it is the dominant form of corruption and why bodies that have rules to limit undue influence would not tolerate most of what happens in game PR. We know what not courting undue influence looks like, the FCPA is a great resource for this, and this does not look like that even before you give out free Nexus 7s.

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

 

[soultron]

.

 

[styl3s]

It's not a binary switch between "completely corrupt" and "legitimate," it's a gradual loss of trust that comes from a variety of sources.

When we hear about this stuff, it's usually something that happened behind closed doors, which is more than enough justification for people to be cynical and suspicious by default.

The fact you people immediately write them off because they were given a gift is beyond cynical. A lot of these people end up giving them away to the people who read and support their website, YT channel or twitch.

The day i ever become this so goddamn cynical about this industry is the day i just stop buying video games.

 

[chickdigger802]

Am i crazy or ubisoft apologizing is the wrong move?

It's like... showing weakness when they didn't really need to?

 

[jschreier]

I dunno...what you see as "getting better," I see as only more transparent corruption. Which I guess IS better in that it's just more obvious how busted mainstream games journalism is, but that doesn't make it any less busted.

Stuff like this is why GAF is the only bookmark in my gaming folder now.

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?

 

[TyrantII]

The problem is that it's hard to identify straight up 'Give me dollah for score' moments instead the issue slides into that grey area where this stuff works.

As an example I go to a preview event, meet the developers, have a good talk, later we share dinner and a few drinks. The game was a bit wobbly but my new 'friends' Bob and Sherry are really excited and passionate about this project and assure me that the code I was playing was a few steps behind the current development code and they were on top of it. A few weeks pass and the review code arrives, I play it and I see the same issues or even new issues, so I call Bob and Sherry and ask about this, they assure me that it's totally fixed in the day one patch, now what do I do?

The straight forward thing to do is mark the game you received and maybe note the promise of a day one patch let's say that's score is a 7. Of course I'm in the industry I know what a score of 7 means to a developer being aware of the FallOut New Vegas bullshit. I like Bob and Sherry and we had such a good time discussing the industry and weird foibles like review scores and the perverse way they feed into games. Am I going to risk their jobs by giving that 7? Maybe I'll trust to faith and move to an 8, it's not dishonest as I liked the game and if they fix the bugs with the patch they promised it is an 8/10 so I'm not even lying. Of course the game ships,the patch doesn't fix the bugs or introduces new ones but that doesn't even mean Bob and Sherry are liars perhaps the bugs were new or from an area they're not involved in.

Maybe I don't talk to Bob and Sherry maybe my relationship is strictly business like with the PR, I have the exact same experience as outlined above so I call Jeoe the PR. Joe assures me that the bugs are fixed and that I can give that 8/10 (he jokes and say 10/10, what a card). If I don't give that 8/10 and the patch does fix all the issues will Joe take offence and not send me those press releases on time? Will the plane be full up for the next chance to interview Bob and Sherry? I live and die on clicks if Joe thinks I'm awkward and I'm not from a major site what is the incentive for him to work with me?

This is the social pressure, undue influence, 'too closeness' call it what you may but it is the dominant form of corruption and why bodies that have rules to limit undue influence would not tolerate most of what happens in game PR. We know what not courting undue influence looks like, the FCPA is a great resource for this, and this does not look like that even before you give out free Nexus 7s.

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.

 

[MechaBowser]

Looking forward to mostly good reviews by all the journalists that attended.

 

[havokt]

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?

Won't this only cause publishers to look for new and innovative ways to game the system. For example, whats to stop publishers from blacklisting individuals or companies from attending any future events if they bring this information to the public? Whats going to stop them from having journalist sign NDA agreements or some other creative scheme?

Most large publishers are multimillion or multibillion dollar companies. They answer only to their shareholders (publicly traded) or to their bottom line (private company). I guess we can hope bringing light onto the subject will help sway these companies away from similar future actions. However, let me ask why do you feel these companies give out these expensive grab bags?

 

[Kadayi]

You could take the phone and still be honest, but the only scores we can basically trust now are the low ones...

Wha....

Also its a tablet, not a phone.