Fucking game journalism

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, just because reviewers aren't paid for good scores doesn't mean reviews aren't part of marketing. If they weren't marketing then no one would send out pre-release review codes.

[Mister Jack]

Also, while reviews might not be "paid" in the sense that money exchanges hands, sometimes it is paid in the sense that there are reviewers on record who had to consider the possibility that their review copies and industry event access would be revoked if they were too harsh on some big budget, high profile release from a large company. Just look at all the reviewers on Youtube who no longer receive early copies from one publisher or another because they shat on a previous release.

[TheMightyEthan]

Do you have any links for that? I've never heard a reviewer say they've ever been scared of being cut off if they're too harsh, every time I've seen one address the issue they've always said they've never been worried about that.

[Mister Jack]

Here's one article about how publishers will wine and dine reviewers before they review their game.

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Publisher-Admits-Game-Review-Scores-Heavily-Influenced-By-Trips-Parties-Swag-48395.html

 

There was also the Jeff Gerstmann scandal if you remember that, where he got fired from Gamespot for giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch and Sony threatened to pull their advertising over it. Eidos may not have been directly responsible but it was still a huge controversy back in the day.

 

I don't really remember which specific videos he says it on because there are so many but Angry Joe has repeatedly mentioned being blacklisted by certain companies after he shat on their game or made videos calling out their anti-consumer practices.

 

Jim Sterling did a video on the topic at least once.

 

[Thursday Next]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161206/07190336205/game-review-site-says-square-enix-blacklisted-them-to-punish-low-review-scores.shtml here's another one. Most "blacklisting" I have heard of is more in relation to leaks than to scores. But there are definitely lists of "friendly" outlets (and "influencers") who will get the gold-star treatment, in the hope (if not certainty) that a better than average review will result.

 

I mean you only have to watch a release from a big publisher. The first week on metacritic is mostly high, 8-10, then week 2 you see that number trend downwards as less favoured sites get their say.

 

I don't even think that it is necessarily a deliberate attempt to mislead on the part of either journalists or publishers. Nobody is saying "this game is a bit shit, we'd better lean on publications for a better score before we get found out" (or at least they aren't in my presence). Rather, a publication that is given free stuff will generally feel better disposed towards a product, and publishers are more likely to want to work with people where they have a positive history. It's just human nature. You're more likely to be generous to people you like, and people you are generous with are more likely to like and support you. The same goes for reviews of similar games from different publishers. Bethesda can release buggy rpgs and people just chuckle along and say it is "part of the charm" and get an easy 8/9, EA release Mass Effect Andromeda and get heavily criticised and downgraded for the bugs and facial animations with cries of "did they even QA this?"

 

The fact that it is not deliberate does not mean that the "reviews" part of "games journalism" are not marketing though. They absolutely are.