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 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 apologized 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'.
I don't know if it'll sway someone that much. My roommate received a free Xbox One from Microsoft with Forza, Dead Rising 3 and Ryse. He hasn't touched the system since launch and only played 10 minutes of Ryse, he doesn't like the console at all.
I don't know if it'll sway someone that much. My roommate received a free Xbox One from Microsoft with Forza, Dead Rising 3 and Ryse. He hasn't touched the system since launch and only played 10 minutes of Ryse, he doesn't like the console at all.
I don't know if it'll sway someone that much. My roommate received a free Xbox One from Microsoft with Forza, Dead Rising 3 and Ryse. He hasn't touched the system since launch and only played 10 minutes of Ryse, he doesn't like the console at all.
If I was a game journalist I'd take the phone, and still give them whatever score I felt was appropriate. Can't hate on people accepting that kind of stuff.
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.
Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
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.Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
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.
Yes, because these are things required to do their job. I'm not going to fault a game reviewer for playing a game they received for free if writing game reviews is their job. The business that hired them to write game reviews should certainly reimburse the reviewer if they're going to force them to buy the game just to do their job.Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
Should a movie reviewer pay for their own tickets? Or attend a free screening?
It might be slightly less tolerable if they just handed them out for no reason but I believe I heard they were given out for demoing the games mobile aspects and were aloud to keep them afterwards. Sure they could have held on to them and used them for other things but regardless I am less likely to believe someone who goes out drinking with or hangs out with the developers or publishers then someone who just received a free gift that every other reviewer got. We dont even know if they were given out with the intention to sway scores. I am not saying Ubisoft isn't sincere b/c I don't know but Its PR . If gamer's are making a thing about it they would be stupid to not issue a apology regardless of how they feel on the issue. Maybe I just feel like this part of the industry is already so screwed up . We get game reviewers subtracting points for bugs and other tech issues with one game and then completely ignoring these factors in others. That happens with out any free tablets being given away. I have wrote most reviewers off a long time ago and even those I trust I know its just one persons opinion of a game.
I'm interested in the extent of hospitality practices from major publishers and the differences between them, interviews with PRs from these firms and discussions of how they set the boundaries and what they regard as 'over the line'. It can be very revealing to see what kind of importance people on both sides of a transaction assign to a thing, it's not unheard of for one side to regard it as trivial and 'standard practice' but for the other to say 'If we don't do it we know that we'll get negative coverage'. It's probably just a personal fascination of mine but the business of how these things are presented is as interesting to me as the thing being presented.
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
Oh, somehow I missed that post. Sorry!That'd be neat. Sort of dumb for Schreier to ask what can be done specifically, then not respond when someone comes up with something interesting.
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-wrongI'm interested in the extent of hospitality practices from major publishers and the differences between them, interviews with PRs from these firms and discussions of how they set the boundaries and what they regard as 'over the line'. It can be very revealing to see what kind of importance people on both sides of a transaction assign to a thing, it's not unheard of for one side to regard it as trivial and 'standard practice' but for the other to say 'If we don't do it we know that we'll get negative coverage'. It's probably just a personal fascination of mine but the business of how these things are presented is as interesting to me as the thing being presented.
How can we trust your word? You aren't in a position to say that you wouldn't, and we definitely aren't in a position to automatically trust you to not do so.
Oh, somehow I missed that post. Sorry!
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.
I wouldn't really give a fuck to be quite frank. If I was some hypothetical games journalist, my content would speak for itself.
I've been to a LOT of preview events over the years and I can assure you that the people in attendance are not just professional journalists but hobbyists, other industry professionals, business executives, and even fans that got lucky and won an invitation. Not that professional journalists can't act in an embarrassing way, but the people you observed might not have even been members of the press.I've been to a few preview events over the years and I always thought how embarrassing the people were. It's like they didn't have the interest to cover a game but to get there hands on free food and drink plus any swag offered at the end.
Journalist swag. They will down play this and say it has no bearing on their review score or say they will give it away to some one else.
yup, either way their scores will be high because that way they secure their tickets for the next event. And, possibly, more swag for convincing purposes.
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.Curious to hear why you think this isn't newsworthy, but oreos are.
I dunno. EA giving journalists a $200 cheque didn't exactly save Dante's Inferno or give it high scores.
I don't believe there's much of a story for us here
I think they call it uplayBet there's spyware!
If I was a game journalist I'd take the phone, and still give them whatever score I felt was appropriate. Can't hate on people accepting that kind of stuff.
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.
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.
Easier said than done. If you are flown to events, housed in nice hotels and given dinners and drinks plus freebies, you might start to think about how you can do it again.
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.)Why can't this be part of the serious posts?
Oh, because most websites didn't take it. We should all forgive Ubisoft for throwing in some obvious sway-swag because many of the journalist reported that they denied a brand-spankin' new tablet.
East posts silly stuff, but as you said, Kotaku is a mix, and there's no reason not to find another angle on this story.
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.)Nah, that argument would be silly. However, your outlet DID expect PS4s from Sony for review purposes don't they? For the sake of argument, why would the Nexus 7 be any different? The tablet could just go to the outlet for use for any second screen functions for that game and future games from every company.
Maybe I'm just naive but receiving a gift wouldn't mean jack shit when it came to reviewing the final game.