Wow! Black on frontpage of gamespot. buy! Wow elder scrolls! Must be good. It's good because the people who make elder scrolls or black bought that space. In effect, you've just been duped into excitedly buying into ONE BIG ADVERTISEMENT. I don't know about you, but any large media outlet cannot be trusted to have your interests at heart. http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/feature/preview-ho-gamespotgamespy-163398.php By: Wagner James Au When I launched Kotaku's Preview Ho column a couple weeks ago, I did so on the assumption that the gaming press hyped up their previews primarily to stay in good stead with the publishers, whose access and ad revenue they depend on. But in the case of the top two gaming sites, at least, I quickly learned that the story is more complicated--and disturbing-- than even that. Shortly after the first Preview Ho, I was contacted by a former media buyer for various game publishers. This person was irked by the game media's pretense that previews were pure editorial. But unlike their readers-- or for that matter, me-- my source had hard proof they were much more than that. "I was the media buyer who made the purchase," the source told me, "signed the insertion order, and then followed up to make sure that what we had been promised was in fact delivered." What was delivered, my source went on, was editorial placement on the two largest game websites for a sizeable fee. This source sent me some invoices for a game studio client. (For good measure, I faxed copies to my Gawker editors.) Several were from Gamespot, and while most of the items referred to legitimate ads, a couple mentioned something called "Front Door rotation"-- or what Gamespot staffers refer to as a "gumball". Gumballs are those thumbnail screenshots you see on the front page of Gamespot, when you visit the site-- clicking on these takes you to an article about the game. In the Gamespot invoice I looked at, a gumball for two weeks cost the media buyer's client over $7000. "You can purchase messaging plus units that increase the likelihood of an article about your game showing up on their front page," the source said. In other words, if you want your game to get more editorial prominence, you pay extra. Then the source showed me an invoice for the same game, this one from IGN/Gamespy. What Gamespot calls a gumball, Gamespy calls, less charmingly, a "Gamespy Spotlight". But the content and the principle is basically the same: the Spotlights are those thumbnail screenshot links that you see on the site's front page. "What you're looking at on the front page is not what the editors decided is the best game," the media buyer informed me. Reached for comment, both the editors of Gamespot and Gamespy, unsurprisingly, have a much different way of looking at their policies. "I can confirm that GameSpot does offer publishers programs that promote their content on our site using a variety of means," Gamespot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin acknowledged. "The promotion causes gumballs linking to specific content to appear more often than other gumballs (which are auto-generated for all new content and displayed randomly and dynamically upon page load)." But for the "vast majority of cases", he goes on, the gumball doesn't feature Gamespot editorial, but an official asset like the game's trailer or a playable demo. "Our editors have the authority and responsibility to decide which content gets top billing," Kasavin added. I asked Kasavin about this "vast majority" of gumballs-- what was an exception, where a paid gumball linked straight to Gamespot editorial? As it happened, he said, such a gumball is currently in play, for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox 360. "I wouldn't want you to jump to the incorrect conclusion that the extra push being given to the review must mean that the game's publisher somehow influenced the review in the first place," Kasavin added hastily. "My guess is this promotional deal was negotiated after we decided to give the game a positive review, but since I'm not privy to the details of these types of deals, I don't know for sure." He insisted that Gamespot maintains a strict separation between editorial and ad sales. IGN/Gamespy had a similar explanation for the selling of their editorial space. First noting that the practice is "pretty common both in print and online", Peer Schneider, IGN's VP of Content Publishing, described their Spotlights as "'sponsored' slotting, sometimes called 'digital reprint.' This is a practice where advertisers want to make sure coverage of their titles is seen. For example, some magazines sell their cover image (or part of it) to the highest bidder." Schneider insisted IGN and GameSpy don't sell their "top story" placement to anyone. "We have, however, designated spots that can be 'sponsored.' What this means is that a publisher interested in exposing more users to a title (including games, movies, etc.) can book a one-day sponsorship in what we call 'spotlights.'" Like Kasavin, Schneider enunciated a principle of strict separation between editorial and ad sales. "In the time I have been here (six years now)," Gamespy editorial director John "Warrior" Keefer added, "there has never been any deliberate intent to deceive our readers. If anything, we try to err in the other direction. I am a strong proponent of editorial integrity. My staff knows that the quickest way to get on my bad side is to mess with GameSpy's name or reputation. We have made a few mistakes (Donkey Konga, anyone?), but those we have never shied away from or tried to sweep under the carpet (I spent three days after Donkey Konga answering questions and posting on boards)." Hos, or honest brokers? We leave that to the readers of Gamespot and Gamespy to decide. To us, however, their answers raise more questions than they answer. Can any indy game studio really compete for attention against publishers who can afford to stack the deck? With so much money at stake, how separate can editorial and ad sales truly be? And what would happen if it were discovered that, say, the websites of Premiere and Entertainment Weekly charged the studios extra to put their trailers (no matter how mediocre) in a prominent place on their page? We leave readers with those questions to ponder, as well. For now, consider this a glimpse inside the sausage factory, where games often reach the public awareness not because of their quality, but because of the billing that goes with them. And the search for Hos continues. Send samples of egregiously fawning game previews and information on backroom deals that influence them to au@kotaku.com. Tips from editors and writers in the game press especially welcom--all correspondence kept strictly confidential.
This has been a well known fact for sometime, even more so now, money, perks, parties, list goes on and on with the crap they will toss to you.
I havent fully trusted gaming site reviews ever since Halo 2 came out. Perfect score and so many damn flaws... IMO, IGN is the best. They try to not be fanboyish and "in the hype" as much as the other guys. In fact, they gave Kingdom Hearts II a scroe of 7.6 which has led to an uproar in their forums. On the topic of spotlighting games, I never thought much into it. I didnt think that they were paid top dollar for a slot on there, though. I just thought they were simply talking about upcoming games, like in a magazine article.
Metacritic is the only site I rely on for reviews, read the top 2 scores and the bottom two scores (and pay attention to the sources).
Gamestation UK Accept money from companies to put a game in specific positions on the chart. If you run out of stock of that game, you must place other games by that developer in teh spot (even if the title is really old).
Yep, I got seriously pissed when I played that game. Halo 2 was getting such psychotic praise from everyone, even the few places I trusted for reviews, that I expected it to be some sort of holy light at the end of the proverbial gaming tunnel. But when I played it I ended up comming across sooo many flaws that I stopped playing about half way through out of pure disgust. The fact that so many places had blatently lied about its quality opted me to go out and get a video capture card so I could make a video documentary that showed just how broken the game was. Unfortunatly I never finished it due to certan technical difficulties that arrose. I still use IGN reviews to get the general gist of their thoughs on games, but I don't feel they're particularly trustworthy. I've bought games they said were gold that ended up being lousy, and ones they said were junk that were actualy addictive and fun. And obviously no matter what they say about certan games people (like myself) will buy them. Kingdom Hearts II for example: I don't care if they gave it a 1 out of 10 and said SquareEnix accidently put Soras head on backwords (litteraly) in the english version, I was still going to buy it.
That was probably the longest article I ever read that I knew exactly what would happen. That's why I never really read previews. I look at pics and movies, and that's it.
Yeah, they gave Star Wars Battlefront II a lousy score and I found the game fun. I also hate their review of Front Mission 4. The guy who wrote that review was thinking too far into it. It was something along the lines of some guy stealing a Mech to get 25 million dollars. The guy said he was dumb for not selling the mech, which in game cost about $8000. He was mixing real life and games in his review. Not good.
The average person does NOT know this. The average person thinks game informer is a real magazine too lol.
Man this is old as gaming itself, I remember when sony paid everyone and their dog to show FFVIII CGs as actual screenshots. That and all the covers featuring crappy TR games, the fifth element, etc... I heard the editorial wages are crappy to say the best, so they (the writers) try to grap any freebies (including actual cash) they can from the publishers. After all, what was the internet bubble anyways? a bunch of corporations paying the media to tell you "you should invest in this and that" so you end up giving your life savings away for stock that isnt even worth the paper in which it's printed. They also dont know the bush administration racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just five years, and thats way more important.
EGM and GamePro in the early-to-mid 90s killed off any care I had for "scored reviews". I only look at the media available (pics, vids) and a general description of the game. Sometimes, I'll look for "indie" reviews from gamers themselves, but like anything else it's simply an opinion from one person's point of view. I'd just as soon ask long-time gamer friends what they thought instead -- in many cases, they have more experience than many of the people behind the mainstream magazine reviews as it is.
Like all media, you have to take it with a grain of salt, but you can't totally ignore it. I have read the gamespot reviews, and played the games in question and found their reports to be factual. The scores, however, are a bit of a "crying wolf" mentality. That goes for all of them. Some silly FPS is given an 8.0 even though it is just like 99% of the other FPS's, but then a game like Metroid Prime comes along (first person "adventure") and the reviewers for all the magazines and online media were like, "no, really guys, this time, the high score means something, go check it out! No, seriously, we're not joking"
I agree with some reviews, and totally hate others. Gamespot's review of Wild Arms 2 was ON THE MONEY, as far as Im concerned.
