Obsidian got fucked by Bethesda

[praetor]

Might be. But not everything can be bought by money. Imagine if it is true, and one particularly morally strong gaming site decided to report on a publisher's attempt to buy high scores? Or it does not even have to be morally strong, the amount of revenue that a gaming site can get from visits for a news-scoop like that, easily outweighs manifold any revenue they would get from bought reviews: It would be DEVASTATING for said publisher and it would lose far more money than it could earn by buying scores, possibly even go bankrupt. And all publishers know this. If it is indeed happening, I think it is happening in extremely small circles, and that most reviews are not bought by the same publisher.

Another interesting question is, how come not a single ex-reviewer has ever talked about this (as far as I know)? Maybe they are threatened on their life to silence, but that only makes the theory seem even more unlikely.

i guess you missed that whole "kane and lynch gamespot scandal" a couple of years ago. it was anything but "devastating" for eidos. K&L sold relatively poorly, but a couple of weeks after that everything was forgotten and then business as usual for both gamespot and eidos. that's the modern gaming industry for you. "decline" is the understatement of the century

 

[aris]

I did indeed miss that, do you have a link to it, so I can read about it? I must say though, that it is quite strange since kane & lynch got a review score of 6.0 and the sequel 6.5 on gamespot. That's a pretty badly bought game review in my book.

*edit* Ah, now it comes back to me. No, I did not miss that, I remember quite clearly the outrage of this. This is in any case not a case of bought reviews, but possibly a case of gamespot yielding to pressure of firing the reviewer who gave it a low score. Keep in mind that this was never proved though, and is simply a rumor, though the circumstances were certainly suspect.

 

[Infinitron]

Everything was "as usual" because they fired the reviewer!!

Google Jeff Gerstmann.

I did indeed miss that, do you have a link to it, so I can read about it? I must say though, that it is quite strange since kane & lynch got a review score of 6.0 and the sequel 6.5 on gamespot. That's a pretty badly bought game review in my book.

*edit* Ah, now it comes back to me. No, I did not miss that, I remember quite clearly the outrage of this. This is in any case not a case of bought reviews, but possibly a case of gamespot yielding to pressure of firing the reviewer who gave it a low score. Keep in mind that this was never proved though, and is simply a rumor, though the circumstances were certainly suspect.

It was proved. They recently admitted it.

 

[Brayko]

So, massive gaming sites with massive pressure to place solid reviews on AAA titles which are shit due to hype and attention or else the poor sod who honestly reviewed it didn't like it gets fired? Ha, never would have guessed.

 

[Average Manatee]

EA is making mistakes while promoting Battlefield 3

Electronic Arts is accused of trying to influence and condition the reviews for the upcoming Battlefield 3 first person shooter, as the PR department of its Norwegian branch has sent special questionnaires to members of the media that want early copies of the game, asking them things like their preference between Battlefield or Call of Duty.

Battlefield 3 is getting ready to be released next week so it's usual for media outlets to ask for early copies and get their reviews ready just when the game is being released into stores.

While this usually entails just getting in touch with the PR representatives of the publishers and supplying your address, for Battlefield 3, EA has asked media representatives to take part in an online survey.

The questions asked by EA cover all sorts of things, from the reviewer's past experience with the Battlefield franchise, to his preference between it and the Call of Duty series. Check out the full list below, courtesy of PC Gamer.

Did the reviewer personally review Battlefield: Bad Company 2 or Black Ops?
What score did he give it?
What is his past experience with Battlefield?
Is he a fan of Battlefield?
Is he a fan of Call of Duty?
Has he been playing BF Franchise? BFBC2? 1943? BF2?
Has he expressed enthusiasm or concern for BF3? What are they?
Did he play the beta? Did he enjoy it / get frustrated with it?
What is his present view on the game?

As you can see, EA conditions the release of review copies pretty blatantly, so you can imagine the waves this questionnaire generated when it hit the web.

EA's Norway marketing manager, Oliver Sveen, made an official statement afterward, saying that the survey was sent to media outlets due to a human error.

"It is a human error that was sent out," he said. "We have made a mistake and we apologize. It is not something that should have happened earlier or [that] we intend to continue."

Anyone who doesn't think this is the de-facto standard in the industry is

 

[dextermorgan]

Did the Mr Ebert personally review Transformers or Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen?
What score did he give it?
What is his past experience with Michael Bay?
Is he a fan of Transformers?
Is he a fan of Terminator?
Has he been watching Transformers? Revenge of The Fallen? Bad Boys? Bad Boys 2?
Has he expressed enthusiasm or concern for Transformers 3? What are they?
Did he watch the teaser? Did he enjoy it / get frustrated with it?
What is his present view on Transformers 3?

Can you even begin to imagine the fallout?

 

[LeStryfe79]

Do I get Kodex Kool Kreds for having a thread necro'd?

 

[.Pixote.]

I would never buy a game based on a gaming sites review, I prefer to let the dust settle and listen to the game players, generally they know more than the dodgy "professional" game reviewers. It's amazing how many people pre-order games nowadays, I laugh when they get burnt with substandard releases. I can't believe how seriously people take gaming nowadays, they're just games...

 

[RK47]

Might be. But not everything can be bought by money. Imagine if it is true, and one particularly morally strong gaming site decided to report on a publisher's attempt to buy high scores? Or it does not even have to be morally strong, the amount of revenue that a gaming site can get from visits for a news-scoop like that, easily outweighs manifold any revenue they would get from bought reviews: It would be DEVASTATING for said publisher and it would lose far more money than it could earn by buying scores, possibly even go bankrupt. And all publishers know this. If it is indeed happening, I think it is happening in extremely small circles, and that most reviews are not bought by the same publisher.

Another interesting question is, how come not a single ex-reviewer has ever talked about this (as far as I know)? Maybe they are threatened on their life to silence, but that only makes the theory seem even more unlikely.

Joined: Apr 27, 2012

 

[DwarvenFood]

Might be. But not everything can be bought by money. Imagine if it is true, and one particularly morally strong gaming site decided to report on a publisher's attempt to buy high scores? Or it does not even have to be morally strong, the amount of revenue that a gaming site can get from visits for a news-scoop like that, easily outweighs manifold any revenue they would get from bought reviews: It would be DEVASTATING for said publisher and it would lose far more money than it could earn by buying scores, possibly even go bankrupt. And all publishers know this. If it is indeed happening, I think it is happening in extremely small circles, and that most reviews are not bought by the same publisher.

Another interesting question is, how come not a single ex-reviewer has ever talked about this (as far as I know)? Maybe they are threatened on their life to silence, but that only makes the theory seem even more unlikely.

You really are quite naive eh? It has happened, and they have talked about it, and no the consequences were not devastating. It does not take a genious to see the game being played with availability of pre-release copies, game presentations and such, versus online competition. The gaming sites will not cut their own fingers by suddenly becoming fair and objective. If anyone is gonna go out of business it will be the reviewer and not the publisher.

Do I get Kodex Kool Kreds for having a thread necro'd?

Dude, thread started in March.. look at Saint Proverbius, now that's a real necro.

 

[Infinitron]

Might be. But not everything can be bought by money. Imagine if it is true, and one particularly morally strong gaming site decided to report on a publisher's attempt to buy high scores? Or it does not even have to be morally strong, the amount of revenue that a gaming site can get from visits for a news-scoop like that, easily outweighs manifold any revenue they would get from bought reviews: It would be DEVASTATING for said publisher and it would lose far more money than it could earn by buying scores, possibly even go bankrupt. And all publishers know this. If it is indeed happening, I think it is happening in extremely small circles, and that most reviews are not bought by the same publisher.

Another interesting question is, how come not a single ex-reviewer has ever talked about this (as far as I know)? Maybe they are threatened on their life to silence, but that only makes the theory seem even more unlikely.

Joined: Apr 27, 2012

 

[Jarpie]

HAHA OW WOW, Reviews not bought? There was an article/column in finnish gaming magazine how big publisher (EA or Activision) flew journalists to some very expensive spa to play game on the whole weekend - They even flew the journalists on military escort and military helicopters from airport to the spa.

 

[aris]

Wow, can't you do better than calling me naive, and quoting, twice no less, the date I joined, as if that is even remotely relevant to the discussion? You can't really blame me for remaining skeptical to a theory about some sinister hidden business practice to which there is no proof to. Such a theory has a name, and it is called a conspiracy, there is really no two ways about it. I'm not saying it is not true, mind you, it might very well be, I'm just trying to argue that there are other likely causes of AAA-titles generally getting well received, than that the scores are bought.

HAHA OW WOW, Reviews not bought? There was an article/column in finnish gaming magazine how big publisher (EA or Activision) flew journalists to some very expensive spa to play game on the whole weekend - They even flew the journalists on military escort and military helicopters from airport to the spa.

Ok, so this shows directly (do you have a link to this?) that publishers try to sway journalists into giving them better scores, which on the whole is a pretty usual business practice an is not nearly as controversial as you might think, but that's a whole other bag than buying review scores directly.

 

[Fens]

in case gaudaost is not just a troll account:

yeah, well... the join date just shows how long you've been around... which explains in part your naivety, so see it as a way for the other people here to understand you as new, instead of retarded

publishers don't just hand out bribes to get good scores, they actively threaten reviewers with pulling ads. this in turn leads to reviewing sites firing people who post an honest review, instead of a marketing blurb. Jeff Gerstman's firing from gamespot in 2009 was the most written about case of this afaik. normally reviewing sites stop the editors before the article gets published, so you don't get to see it. in Gerstman's case, the review was online on a gamespot site plastered full of Kane&Lynch ads, so the connection to his firing was too obvious to be swept under the rug.

this is quite common and not just a conspiracy theory. you may have noticed a considerable disparity between metacritic scores from professional reviews and player reviews. it's not (just) codex & 4chan trolls fixing results there.

 

[Morkar Left]

Examples from German speaking countries out of my head:
- Jörg Luibl from 4gamers raised his voice about some common business methods when it comes to buy reviews. Doesn't matter if you like this guy or his reviews but at least he said something.
- PC Games (Computec Media) offers whole marketing campaigns with scores for publishers.
- The ex-owner of the formerly well-known Amiga Joker / PC Joker admitted in a chat that some reviews were given a very generous score because of advertising deals with the publisher. And this was still in the early years of gaming mags. Btw. he had nothing to lose and nothing to gain by admitting this because he was already out of this business long ago. Btw. I can't thank him enough for admitting this.
- Several journalists who worked in the industry for some decades admitted indirectly that the industry changed to the worse and business got more shady

 

[Jarpie]

Wow, can't you do better than calling me naive, and quoting, twice no less, the date I joined, as if that is even remotely relevant to the discussion? You can't really blame me for remaining skeptical to a theory about some sinister hidden business practice to which there is no proof to. Such a theory has a name, and it is called a conspiracy, there is really no two ways about it. I'm not saying it is not true, mind you, it might very well be, I'm just trying to argue that there are other likely causes of AAA-titles generally getting well received, than that the scores are bought.

HAHA OW WOW, Reviews not bought? There was an article/column in finnish gaming magazine how big publisher (EA or Activision) flew journalists to some very expensive spa to play game on the whole weekend - They even flew the journalists on military escort and military helicopters from airport to the spa.

Ok, so this shows directly (do you have a link to this?) that publishers try to sway journalists into giving them better scores, which on the whole is a pretty usual business practice an is not nearly as controversial as you might think, but that's a whole other bag than buying review scores directly.

Unfortunately no since it was in published magazine and they don't have colums and articles on their website. It was also in finnish so unless you understand our language even link wouldn't help much. When I get home, I can look for the column itself and translate key stuff from it.

The editor-in-chief also wrote in another issue that major publisher (they didn't tell which publisher and what game) had limit on how low score their game should get or the publisher would blacklist the magazine and wouldn't give advanced copies, previews, interviews etc... but editor-in-chief wrote that "Fortunately the game was good enough for higher score"...funny coincidence, huh?

 

[aris]

in case gaudaost is not just a troll account:

yeah, well... the join date just shows how long you've been around... which explains in part your naivety, so see it as a way for the other people here to understand you as new, instead of retarded

Dude, the amount of time I have been a member on this forum, has literally zero impact on whatever naivety I might have. One learns about not being naive from real life, not from internet forums.

publishers don't just hand out bribes to get good scores, they actively threaten reviewers with pulling ads. this in turn leads to reviewing sites firing people who post an honest review, instead of a marketing blurb. Jeff Gerstman's firing from gamespot in 2009 was the most written about case of this afaik. normally reviewing sites stop the editors before the article gets published, so you don't get to see it. in Gerstman's case, the review was online on a gamespot site plastered full of Kane&Lynch ads, so the connection to his firing was too obvious to be swept under the rug.

this is quite common and not just a conspiracy theory. you may have noticed a considerable disparity between metacritic scores from professional reviews and player reviews. it's not (just) codex & 4chan trolls fixing results there.

Again, I'm looking for proofs, in form of verifiable documented articles on this. Forgive me, for not taking your word as is, without documentation. And also, threatening to pull ads on gaming sites for giving bad scores, is certainly on the border of shady business practice, but it is legit. As is inviting journalists on spa-weekends or whatever and within the the rights of the publishers to do it. It is different still from buying scores directly. The disparity in metascore player reviews and professional reviews, has much to do with that games having a particularly jarring DRM gets 1 from a shitload of players, while professional reviewers generally don't do this. In case of mass effect 3, it received an enormous amount of 1s just from the ending. Players reviews on metascore are generally non-serious and much like IMDB consists mostly of people either voting 10 or 1 for a game, with nearly no middleground. For example, look at the amount of mixed reviews, and compare that to the amount of positive and negative on mass effect 3: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3

Examples from German speaking countries out of my head:
- Jörg Luibl from 4gamers raised his voice about some common business methods when it comes to buy reviews. Doesn't matter if you like this guy or his reviews but at least he said something.
- PC Games (Computec Media) offers whole marketing campaigns with scores for publishers.
- The ex-owner of the formerly well-known Amiga Joker / PC Joker admitted in a chat that some reviews were given a very generous score because of advertising deals with the publisher. And this was still in the early years of gaming mags. Btw. he had nothing to lose and nothing to gain by admitting this because he was already out of this business long ago. Btw. I can't thank him enough for admitting this.
- Several journalists who worked in the industry for some decades admitted indirectly that the industry changed to the worse and business got more shady

Good! Some concrete information, which certainly strengthens the theory (would be even stronger if you had a link to all these allegations). If they are true, I can't argue against it, and I don't really have any interest in that either.

 

[Fens]

Again, I'm looking for proofs, in form of verifiable documented articles on this. Forgive me, for not taking your word as is, without documentation.

ffs... the name's right there... look it up

kids these days...

 

[Morkar Left]

Good! Some concrete information, which certainly strengthens the theory (would be even stronger if you had a link to all these allegations). If they are true, I can't argue against it, and I don't really have any interest in that either.

- Jörg Luibl correspondence should be easy to find again because it was written as a column / for the readership, at the moment I can't acces such sites (at work). You can search for yourself here.
- PC Games; no clue where it was mentioned again and find evidence on the internet might be difficult
- PC Joker chat is available on the net, but to be honest I don't want to make a buzz about it. There is a reason I didn't mentioned his name. Especially because he mentioned some business practices of his competitors, too. I wouldn't be surprised if some trouble would come ahead for him even when it's after a decade ago and I wish him no ill. People who know about the Joker mags should be able to find it though.
- too sprinkled and buried all over the internet

And if you can't understand German there would be no point in showing it to you.

 

[hello friend]

Um. Threatening to pull your ads from a website is almost exactly like bribery. Instead of a positive incentive, a negative incentive is offered. And legal or not, if a game review site doesn't get advance copies/interviews and the like, they lose business, as readers will start frequenting a site that *does* have previews/interviews. Nothing illegal is even remotely neccessary to pressure reviewers into giving high scores.

 

[aris]

I can actually understand german fairly well, and I will look it up. And Grief, yes, it is indeed almost exactly like bribery, still, it is legally legit, though certainly morally shady. I'm starting to get a little weary from this discussion however, so I think I'm ready to throw in the towel. I don't have any interest in defending neither publishers nor gaming sites, but I did feel the need to point out that widely held perceptions are not always true (such as EA being the ruin of bioware, but that's a whole other discussion). Thank you for some informative replies though.

 

[treave]

What the publishers are doing are just as legitimate as lobbyists subtly purchasing congressmen via various incentives. Is it legal? Sure. They're not so stupid as to engage in overtly illegal activities in plain sight. It is, however, not a very pleasant thing to do.

Given the continued faith of the gaming demographic in the industry, though, all we can take away from it is that the system and its fanboys are shitty, fucked up, and deserve to die in a sea of flames.

 

[waywardOne]

All it ever amounts to is idiots believing reviews that they probably agree with anyway.

 

[aris]

What the publishers are doing are just as legitimate as lobbyists subtly purchasing congressmen via various incentives. Is it legal? Sure. They're not so stupid as to engage in overtly illegal activities in plain sight. It is, however, not a very pleasant thing to do.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[SCO]

Given the continued faith of the gaming demographic in the industry, however, all we can take away from it is that the system and its fanboys are shitty, fucked up, and deserve to die in a sea of flames.

That's actually humanity in general.