Support NeoGAF

[TheSpoiler]

Companies handing out swag at press events is not a story. It happens all the time, in every field. (You should see some of the stuff that gets given to journalists at tech events, like $2,000 laptops.)

There's definitely room for bigger-picture stuff about games journalism on Kotaku, but we've covered that a lot, like in the Totilo article I posted earlier. We've also got a newly-formed sub-site by Nathan Grayson that I think will cover a lot of territory that GAF will enjoy.


We got early PS4s so we could review the PS4. We were reviewing that particular product. Plus, that was more about getting the system early than getting it free. We're lucky enough to be in a position that the company could pay for that stuff if necessary. (Also, Kotaku turned down personal PS4 engravings at the Sony event.)

The great thing about journalism is that it can return to some issues. Just because it happens "all the time" doesn't mean it's somehow exempt from discussion.I believe consumers have a right to know if the reviewers received a review copy, a free TV, and a giraffe.

If you can't find an angle on this, fine. It's your website, and at the end of the day, we readers don't make the call. I'll concede there.

But that only pertains to your website, not the whole. Many people might find this as news, some, a reminder. It doesn't even have to be accusatory - the reviewers denied the fucking tablets, as you said.

That's probably newsworthy right there in my mind, that reviewers aren't just taking this stuff and running with it, but that's my opinion.

Just sayin', what may not be newsworthy to you/your site isn't the same elsewhere.

As if games journalism has any integrity left to lose, who really cares if the shit swell in the sewer that is games journalism rises a little higher?

It'd be nice if the shit sewer was a little lower, though, and the point of today is that it might be decreasing. Ubisoft is the one getting the alarms sounded on, not the majority of the journalist here.

 

[Kintaro]

We got early PS4s so we could review the PS4. We were reviewing that particular product. Plus, that was more about getting the system early than getting it free. We're lucky enough to be in a position that the company could pay for that stuff if necessary. (Also, Kotaku turned down personal PS4 engravings at the Sony event.)

I understand that. However, would you have a problem if these outlets simply claimed the tablets for use for the business in providing better coverage of second screen functions for games going forward? Including Watch Dogs (which I believe also has second screen functions as well).

 

[solarus]

I'm not sure how often you read Kotaku, but anyone who does knows that we post a healthy mix of silly and serious posts. Kotaku East often veers more toward silly, unusual, bizarre stuff. The more serious, longer, reported stuff takes a lot more time and effort, and in this case I don't believe there's much of a story for us here. I tend to lean toward writing about these game journalism controversies more often than not - much to my boss's dismay - but I don't think this is a particularly big or unusual one, especially when most of the major UK websites have already said they didn't take or keep the tablet.

This can easily be put up as a short post, it doesn't really need much more than just reporting the fact that they gave these tablets out, you don't have to put further effort in beyond that unless you want to. The point is to just get some awareness of this issue out. Ubi clearly gave these out to leave a positive impression on the journalists and hope that it makes them more positive on the game when reviewing, if even very slightly so. I doubt they just gave them out of goodwill with no other intentions.

 

[Self_Destructive]

I think this is perfectly fine and honestly wont alter reviews at all.

 

[Mithos]

This is the real issue here. They couldn't pony up for iPads?

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

There's only so much you can do do...

Spoiler

with the money budgeted for the Wii U version of the game

:O ;P =)

 

[bigboss370]

i personally don't really care about stuff like this...stopped reading reviews ages ago.

 

[NekoFever]

I have many a times debated this...how does a reviewer who gets a free review copy, limited editions yada yada actually make an unbiased opinion that the game offers a value for money proposition

Many outlets deliberately don't take value for money into account when reviewing. Prices change.

 

[jschreier]

I understand that. However, would you have a problem if these outlets simply claimed the tablets for use for the business in providing better coverage of second screen functions for games going forward? Including Watch Dogs (which I believe also has second screen functions as well).

What if they gave out a TV that outlets accepted to use for review games? What if they gave out a car for driving to press events? You could take this pretty far, but I think that everyone has to draw their own personal boundaries when it comes to this stuff. Ethics aren't binary.

 

[PolarGamer]

That doesn't matter.

The fact that you accepted a gift at a preview event creates the perception of a conflict of interest. And perception is enough to put your integrity in doubt. No matter how many times you say it doesn't affect you, the fact is it looks like it might affect you. And that's everything.

The point about perception is a good one. If people think you are dirty, all other counter arguments are futile.

Spoiler

The Borg had awesome swag

.

 

[John Harker]

So wait, you guys didn't get the huge HDTV's when MS was shopping around the Xbox 360 and Kinect stuff?

 

[The Bookerman]

Remember at e3 when don mattrick announced that everybody at their e3 presser were getting redesigned 360's?

Did anybody call for bribery then?

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Remember at e3 when don mattrick announced that everybody at their e3 presser were getting redesigned 360's?

Did anybody call for bribery then?

Yes. Lots of people.

 

[gunner13]

What if they gave out a TV that outlets accepted to use for review games? What if they gave out a car for driving to press events? You could take this pretty far, but I think that everyone has to draw their own personal boundaries when it comes to this stuff. Ethics aren't binary.

As a journo in the industry If WatchDogs graphic quality etc. ends up being significantly less than what was shown in 2012 do you hold a grudge to Ubi because you were in a way 'had' by a company to promote their game for 2 years on false pretenses? Do you go out of your way to push the breaks on all future Ubi coverage and maybe say "hey that _____ game looks good, but remember it could end up looking like shit when it comes out" ??

Or does it not matter and clicks are king? Which from a guy in finance I get it to ignore stuff like that from a major publisher as there are only a few left and every site needs to make money from covering "premiere games" before launch.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

That doesn't matter.

The fact that you accepted a gift at a preview event creates the perception of a conflict of interest. And perception is enough to put your integrity in doubt. No matter how many times you say it doesn't affect you, the fact is it looks like it might affect you. And that's everything.

I think the reviewers who give theirs away, and also publicize that they've done so, due to such silly concerns are the ones whose credibility should be more realistically called into question, as it showcases how reactionary and beholden they are to the whims of people on the internet. If you can't make a decision on the quality of a game outside of the personal concerns of people on the internet, then what's the point? Hence why giving away something they got for free to satisfy or maintain credibility with a certain crowd is so sily.

You see signs of it in other places and when you look at some comments. No matter how good or bad this game is, any very positive review will be seen as somehow the result of a payoff.

 

[Orayn]

Remember at e3 when don mattrick announced that everybody at their e3 presser were getting redesigned 360's?

Did anybody call for bribery then?

Yes. Lots of people.

Any even if people didn't, why would it matter now? Attitudes change. There's a growing voice of dissent in this post-Doritosgate world of ours, and a person doesn't need to have been committed to a cause for eternity to be sincere about it.

 

[VanquishUK]

I'd rather them give me a 780.

 

[Lalalandia]

Oh, somehow I missed that post. Sorry!


Honestly, that sounds a lot like this large post Stephen wrote for us. Have you seen it? http://kotaku.com/5957810/the-conte...e-gaming-press-and-why-theyre-sometimes-wrong

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Pretty close to what I asked for really, surprised I missed this as I was fairly eating up this stuff at the time, the only limitation of the article being it's genesis in the Wainwright mess. That was always more about the truly horrific state of English libel law (so good English libel awards are unenforcable in the USA) than Rab's article for me. I particularly enjoyed reading a reaction from Wainwright herself as it seemed to me at the time her reaction was defensive and naive one that failed to understand the gravity of invoking the 'L' word in UK publishing.

I'd love to see a follow up in the same vein exploring what has changed even in the 18 months or so since that blew up and how PR has changed in response if at all. Given the rise of prominent amateur media outlets I'd love to hear more from current PR sources as most if not all of those who have now transitioned out of PR and into other roles were dealing with a very different media landscape when they left.

 

[Codeblue]

Also, lol:

I blame Gerstmann for this. His e-mail campaign is tearing the world apart.

 

[RedNumberFive]

For those that keep bringing movie reviewers into this discussion, consider what Roger Ebert had to say on the matter, and ask yourself if say a Polygon writer would hold themselves to the same standards.

Be wary of freebies. The critic should ideally never accept round-trip first-class air transportation, a luxury hotel room, a limo to a screening and a buffet of chilled shrimp and cute little hamburgers in preparation for viewing a movie. If you go, your employer should pay for the trip. I understand some critics work for places that won't even pick up the cost of a movie ticket, and are so underpaid they have never tasted a chilled shrimp. Others work for themselves, an employer who is always going out of business. Yet they are ordered to produce a piece about Michael Cera's new film. I cut them some slack. Let them take the junket. They need the food. Also, I admire Michael Cera. But if they work for a place that is filthy rich, they should turn down freebies.

I admit the Freebie Rule was a hard one for me to acknowledge. In the good old days, movie critics flew more than pilots. I flew first class to Sweden, Ireland, Hawaii, Mexico, Bermuda, Iran, Colombia, Italy, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. I was virtually on the Los Angeles shuttle. I flew to England in November for the filming of "Battle of Britain," and was whisked at dawn to a rainy WWII air field near Newmarket where I was able to stand for hours and freeze my ass off while watching the filming of a scene involving a dog gazing wistfully into the sky for its master's missing airplane. If someone had given me a chilled shrimp, I would have rubbed it between my hands to warm them.

Accept no favors. For example, if some "friends" throw you a birthday party at a Vegas joint they hope to fill with movie stars who are your "friends," say thanks, but no thanks. That crosses the line, even if the "Britney Spears of Korea" truly is your close personal friend. Your only real friends come to the party you throw for yourself in the activities room of your condo building, and they bring their own booze. [Note: If the Britney Spears of Korea is the real thing, Britney Spears should be known in Korea as the BoA Kwan of America.]

More here:

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/rogers-little-rule-book

I'd love for the Giant Bomb crew to acknowledge his "accept no favors" clause.

 

[PolarGamer]

I have been given lots of stuff over the years as a reviewer at relatively small fish publications. Nice hotel stays, trips to other continents, electronics, games, consoles and so on.

After the last financial meltdown this stream of gifts stopped, now mostly including games and consoles. Without this I would not be able to review, at least as many games.

I miss the olde days though. Even knowing it was kind of crazy.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

The point about perception is a good one. If people think you are dirty, all other counter arguments are futile.

Which is exactly why real journalists, people in government etc have very strict policies about accepting and declaring gifts, and avoiding actions which seem like they could affect your integrity.

 

[Fbh]

Well good for them.

Almost every company does stuff like that to have the media in their favor.
If you want to talk about ethics talk about the "experts" who will give this game a better score because they got a free nexus 7

 

[licktheenvelope]

That was nice of them.

 

[Black Door]

This still isn't as dire as EA paying off German editors for good Dragon Age reviews by delivering the review copy via a knight on horseback, with the disc hidden inside a talking book that said the editors' names

 

[koorigashi]

Question, iirc isn't Watchdogs supposed to have big tablet integration for the hacking? I wonder if any words were attached relating to that.

 

[xxracerxx]

Yuck.

 

[Kikarian]

I think this is perfectly fine and honestly wont alter reviews at all.

But this has been going on for a while and always altered reviews in a positive way for the company involved.

 

[Jomjom]

Ubi really doesn't want Watchdogs to succeed. Not even an iPad Mini Retina?

 

[Deleted member 13876]

As for the European press situation being different, part of that is probably due to the fact that there are very few viable publications for journalists to make a living at. If they are writing for one of those few, these companies often don't have the resources to fly their people all over the continent to cover the latest showing of a game, so a lot of the coverage you will see is almost always subsidized in terms of traveling expenses and this holds true for both the publications and enthusiast press.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

At least Rob Florence doesn't have to get get run off for some heat to get to this particular issue nowadays.

 

[Various Artists]

I blame Gerstmann for this. His e-mail campaign is tearing the world apart.

What did Jeff do?

 

[MC Safety]

The best press outlets will give away the tchotchke (not sell it on Ebay) and have separate people review and preview a game.

But no matter what anyone does, game fans are going to cry foul.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Sounds about right. Freebies are at pretty much every event.


Good journalists won't be swayed by such things.

 

[Incitemaybe]

Perhaps I'm missing something but how does this guarantee that the people who received a Nexus will give out a good score?

Why not take it and just write whatever the hell you want?

 

[Deleted member 13876]

The best press outlets will give away the tchotchke (not sell it on Ebay) and have separate people review and preview a game.

But no matter what anyone does, game fans are going to cry foul.

They're still more likely to have a positive view of the company who gave away the free thing courtesy of the Halo effect and a company like Ubisoft releases a substantial amount of games a year that person may still review. I get your solution, and I think it's a crappy situation for the journalist to be in more than anything. It's not that I don't want them to have nice things, but it's important to recognize these trinkets can shift perception, if ever so slightly.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Perhaps I'm missing something but how does this guarantee that the people who received a Nexus will give out a good score?

Why not take it and just write whatever the hell you want?

Why does Ubi give them out then?

It creates doubt and cynicism which, to a critic who relies on their reputation, you'd think they would go out of their way to avoid that.

 

[Tan]

If you're following someone who you think would be bought over by a phone, you probably shouldn't be following that person in the first place.

 

[unbias]

If you're following someone who you think would be bought over by a phone, you probably shouldn't be following that person in the first place.

I think it has less to do with their influence on you personally and more to the idea that they have influence with the less informed.

 

[MC Safety]

I think it has less to do with their influence on you personally and more to the idea that they have influence with the less informed.

It's a cynical view that says anyone can be corrupted. And it doesn't take into account no one is keeping score of tchotchkes received if they all are given away. It also assumes that not only are the editors for these publications keeping track of the tchotchkes, but that they're also communicating to other people on staff or freelancers the need to be "friendly."

The way you look at it, freelancer X who reviews a game is bought and paid for because company Y gave away tchotchkes at a preview event attended by a staff editor.

 

[EmptySpace]

Perhaps I'm missing something but how does this guarantee that the people who received a Nexus will give out a good score?

Why not take it and just write whatever the hell you want?

because they'll be missing out on a free nexus 8 next year when watch_dogs 2 launches.

 

[Kadayi]

The difference between Ubisoft giving journalists a free copy of Watch Dogs and Ubisoft giving journalists a Nexus 7 is that the Nexus 7 isn't necessary for the journalist's coverage. It's just an expensive piece of swag.

One could make the argument that a tablet is necessary for the second-screen features or whatever, but then you could also say Ubisoft should get journalists PS4s, and big-screen TVs. Every journalist has to set boundaries for themselves, and most usually draw the line at publisher-provided copies of games.

I'd hazard the assumption was that being "games journalists" they likely have the basic equipment necessary to review games on their platform of choice.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Back in the day, we sent this out to a few review outlets:

It was mostly an attempt to just get covered at all (since most sites don't cover Xbox Live Indie Games) rather than try to get a good review though.

 

[unbias]

It's a cynical view that says anyone can be corrupted. And it doesn't take into account no one is keeping score of tchotchkes received if they all are given away. It also assumes that not only are the editors for these publications keeping track of the tchotchkes, but that they're also communicating to other people on staff or freelancers the need to be "friendly."

The way you look at it, freelancer X who reviews a game is bought and paid for because company Y gave away tchotchkes at a preview event attended by a staff editor.

No, the way I look at it is Publisher X does action Z and has been known to do action Z over the years, which infers that action Z is getting a return on investment. It really is that simple, and that should encourage cynicism. I'm not sure why anyone would read an opinion piece, even without this kind of stuff going on, and not be initially cynical until proven otherwise. And anyone CAN be corrupted, it doesnt mean everyone is...but a consumer has no way to verify that, so all we have is appearance, perception, and observing business practices..

 

[boredandlazy]

Why all the iPad love in this thread? I would have preferred a Nexus as well.

 

[unbias]

Why all the iPad love in this thread? I would have preferred a Nexus as well.

Ya, I dont get that either. I have a Nexus for work and then bought an ipad out of curiosity. I like the nexus more. That said I think the Kindle is better then both of them.

 

[Mass Effect]

What did Jeff do?

Just listen to the emails segment of the Giant Bombcasts for the last two months. It's absolutely hilarious.

First it started with Australia, then it spread to the rest of the world.

 

[danielcw]

I have many a times debated this...how does a reviewer who gets a free review copy, limited editions yada yada actually make an unbiased opinion that the game offers a value for money proposition

I don't want reviewers to make that judgement.
I want reviewers to describe the game in way that I can make that judgement myself

 

[outunderthestars]

I don't want reviewers to make that judgement.
I want reviewers to describe the game in way that I can make that judgement myself

Agreed.

 

[Obetron]

This is the scummiest thing in journalism. In traditional news coverage of any kind, even accepting a gift will make you liable for taking a bribe, no matter what your intentions are.

Reviewing a restaurant? Nice. They give you a free meal? Wow that's so cool! You should leave money for it.

Covering a sporting event? Epic. Free food bar for attending journalists? That's amazing! You should probably leave money for it.

Reviewing video games? Sweet beets. Get a free Nexus 7 from the publisher? Holy cow I'm jealous. You should probably leave money for it.

Or, shocker, you could just give the item back and tell them you have no need for gifts because it would compromise your integrity. Ubisoft should be ashamed, and so should their PR.

 

[MC Safety]

No, the way I look at it is Publisher X does action Z and has been known to do action Z over the years, which infers that action Z is getting a return on investment. It really is that simple, and that should encourage cynicism. I'm not sure why anyone would read an opinion piece, even without this kind of stuff going on, and not be initially cynical until proven otherwise. And anyone CAN be corrupted, it doesnt mean everyone is...but a consumer has no way to verify that, so all we have is appearance, perception, and observing business practices..

Well, if you'd assume you'd be bought and paid for, there's no reason you'd assume others wouldn't. That's the crux of it, and I can't hope to divest you of that bleak, depressing notion.

I outlined a scenario where no one keeps the tchotchke and where the editor for a publication assigns two different people to review and preview a game. That seems to address the problem at hand...