Could it be possible that they handed the tablets out so that they can talk about the second screen companion app that links to the game perhaps?
maybe.. but they could have lend it to them then,..? not give it..?
Could it be possible that they handed the tablets out so that they can talk about the second screen companion app that links to the game perhaps?
Probably cheaper to just give them out than having track x amount of people around the world to return them after reviews.maybe.. but they could have lend it to them then,..? not give it..?
LOL, utterly ridiculous.
I remember when 2k gave ign an exclusive review embargo of bioshock infinite for them to publish the review 5 days early. Funny enough the game got a 9.4 from them.
https://twitter.com/JoeThreepwood
so score a game high and you (can) get an earlier embargo, confirmed..?
Could it be possible that they handed the tablets out so that they can talk about the second screen companion app that links to the game perhaps?
This is news to you? It's been happening for ages. Yet another reason review scores are worthless and toxic.Wow. After that, how can you really trust reviewers? They're being paid/bribed to score early for the sake of being able to release their "reviews" early.
Could it be possible that they handed the tablets out so that they can talk about the second screen companion app that links to the game perhaps?
Yeah, obviously buying everyone Nexus7 devices was the easiest, cheapest and least morally questionable way of showing off a second screen functionality.Careful there bud. Bringing reason to things is a no no. One must let the outrage flow.
Make a new thread please...
I'm glad this thread is back from the dead. I was recently listening to a bunch of Steve Gaynor's Tone Control podcasts that I had missed out on through being too busy at work. It was weird, two different podcasts with separate guests mentioned in passing this 'icky' thing that some journalists would do during press events, and how this behaviour coloured their own attempted transition from writing about games to getting involved in their production.
The thing in question was to openly solicit for jobs with a studio, in translation / writing stuff was the impression I was left with, while conducting their normal media interview/preview coverage. The two podcasts it was mentioned in was 11-Ryan Payton, and I think 5-Tom Bissel. Just to say again, it was neither of those guys doing it. It was something that happened that they found unpleasant, and I was left with the impression that it was a regular enough occurrence that it was notable.
Is this really a thing? Are some journalists covering studios openly hustling for jobs? I was pretty amazed this was something that happened without a huge amount of public fuss being made of it.
Ridiculous sure, but something about this payoff tells me wii u owners wont be missing out on much if they need to sweeten the deal for good coverage.
Sub-par game incoming.
I'm getting the vibe Ubisoft isn't exceedingly confident about Watchdogs' critical reception.
No wonder game budgets are out of control.
Wasn't there a guy from IGN openly asking someone from Xbox on twitter if he could help host the Xbox E3 this year?
I can't get it off the top of my head exactly, but wouldn't that constitute as openly applying for a job?
This topic never stops being interesting.
Careful there bud. Bringing reason to things is a no no. One must let the outrage flow.
games "journalism"
No wonder game budgets are out of control.
This is part of the problem right here. It was never journalism in the first place. Games writers who refer to themselves as games "journalists" are deluded. Its just a cheap and narcissistic attempt to fluff themselves up.
As soon as somebody refers to him or herself as a journalist, expectations rise when it comes to writing, content and integrity. All in all, no gaming site even comes close to fufilling those standards.
Probably cheaper to just give them out than having track x amount of people around the world to return them after reviews.
This is part of the problem right here. It was never journalism in the first place. Games writers who refer to themselves as games "journalists" are deluded. Its just a cheap and narcissistic attempt to fluff themselves up.
As soon as somebody refers to him or herself as a journalist, expectations rise when it comes to writing, content and integrity. All in all, no gaming site even comes close to fufilling those standards.
Stephen Totilo said:A brief note about the continued discussion about Kotaku's approach to reporting. We've long been wary of the potential undue influence of corporate gaming on games reporting, and we've taken many actions to guard against it. The last week has been, if nothing else, a good warning to all of us about the pitfalls of cliquishness in the indie dev scene and among the reporters who cover it. We've absorbed those lessons and assure you that, moving ahead, we'll err on the side of consistent transparency on that front, too.
We appreciate healthy skepticism from critics and have looked into—and discussed internally—concerns. We agree on the need to ensure that, on the occasion where there is a personal connection between a writer and a developer, it's mentioned. We've also agreed that funding any developers through services such as Patreon introduce needless potential conflicts of interest and are therefore nixing any such contributions by our writers. Some may disagree that Patreons are a conflict. That's a debate for journalism critics.
Ultimately, I believe you readers want the same thing my team, without exception, wants: a site that feels bullshit-free and independent, that tells you about what's cool and interesting about gaming in a fair way that you can trust. I look forward to focusing ever more sharply on that mission.
Polygon just added an Ethics Disclosure section to their writer's profiles where they have to disclose any Patreons they are donating to and other things like review events, etc. For example, here is Tracey Lien's:
Bit of a bump, but I thought this note from Stephen Totilo (Kotaku EiC) today was worth bringing up:
I think the whole Zoe Quinn thing is a non-story that has been discussed to death, but I really wanted to highlight the bolded.
Critics funding dev Patreons is fucking weird and I'm really glad that if anything positive has come out of this mess it is that outlets are concious of the more subtle ways readers think the critic/dev/pub relationship is messed up. I doubt any sane person here thinks publishers are distributing brown bags of cash, but there is a continued sentiment that these technically separate industries aren't as clearly defined as they should be.
But, disappointingly, once again it's Kotaku leading the charge and thinking this warrants mentioning - even some of my favourites like Giant Bomb are silent on the issue.
Polygon just added an Ethics Disclosure section to their writer's profiles where they have to disclose any Patreons they are donating to and other things like review events, etc. For example, here is Tracey Lien's:
Wow. She sure is taking it seriously.
Bit of a bump, but I thought this note from Stephen Totilo (Kotaku EiC) today was worth bringing up:
Bit of a bump, but I thought this note from Stephen Totilo (Kotaku EiC) today was worth bringing up:
I think the whole Zoe Quinn thing is a non-story that has been discussed to death, but I really wanted to highlight the bolded.
Critics funding dev Patreons is fucking weird and I'm really glad that if anything positive has come out of this mess it is that outlets are concious of the more subtle ways readers think the critic/dev/pub relationship is messed up. I doubt any sane person here thinks publishers are distributing brown bags of cash, but there is a continued sentiment that these technically separate industries aren't as clearly defined as they should be.
But, disappointingly, once again it's Kotaku leading the charge and thinking this warrants mentioning - even some of my favourites like Giant Bomb are silent on the issue.
Polygon just added an Ethics Disclosure section to their writer's profiles where they have to disclose any Patreons they are donating to and other things like review events, etc. For example, here is Tracey Lien's:
I might be oversensitive but that sounds like she's making fun of people for being concerned about journalists getting free stuff from the companies that they cover.
Talking to sources is a good method of finding information when you're trying to cover that source.you have game journalists making playdates publicly on twitter with the same indie developers they are supposed to either cover or give light to their projects.
Bit of a bump, but I thought this note from Stephen Totilo (Kotaku EiC) today was worth bringing up:
Critics funding dev Patreons is fucking weird and I'm really glad that if anything positive has come out of this mess it is that outlets are concious of the more subtle ways readers think the critic/dev/pub relationship is messed up. I doubt any sane person here thinks publishers are distributing brown bags of cash, but there is a continued sentiment that these technically separate industries aren't as clearly defined as they should be.
But, disappointingly, once again it's Kotaku leading the charge and thinking this warrants mentioning - even some of my favourites like Giant Bomb are silent on the issue.
Polygon just added an Ethics Disclosure section to their writer's profiles where they have to disclose any Patreons they are donating to and other things like review events, etc. For example, here is Tracey Lien's:
Talking to sources is a good method of finding information when you're trying to cover that source.
I might be oversensitive but that sounds like she's making fun of people for being concerned about journalists getting free stuff from the companies that they cover.
Bit of a bump, but I thought this note from Stephen Totilo (Kotaku EiC) today was worth bringing up:
I think the whole Zoe Quinn thing is a non-story that has been discussed to death, but I really wanted to highlight the bolded.
Critics funding dev Patreons is fucking weird and I'm really glad that if anything positive has come out of this mess it is that outlets are concious of the more subtle ways readers think the critic/dev/pub relationship is messed up. I doubt any sane person here thinks publishers are distributing brown bags of cash, but there is a continued sentiment that these technically separate industries aren't as clearly defined as they should be.
But, disappointingly, once again it's Kotaku leading the charge and thinking this warrants mentioning - even some of my favourites like Giant Bomb are silent on the issue.
Polygon just added an Ethics Disclosure section to their writer's profiles where they have to disclose any Patreons they are donating to and other things like review events, etc. For example, here is Tracey Lien's:
<img hotlinked to death>