Currently on vacation with my family. I did not see Som's article until today. I can however say that WE DO NOT accept payment for reviews, but some companies have tried. Usually Eastern imported MMOs, and never a big AAA company.
And I know for a fact of two of our direct competitors who DO accept $$$ for their favorable reviews. I won't say who without proof to back it up. But they're not likely the kind of sites that most of our readers would visit outside of good Google Search returns. They don't have the community that Massively and MMORPG support.
And if those sites do it, it's highly likely that other sites across other genres and countries do as well.
So while you may not agree with scores we sometimes give, they've never been paid for.
For the TSW COLUMN: we honestly just see good traffic on those, as the game has a following here and abroad. Niche though it may be. We generally write what you guys read, so if people stop clicking TSW columns, we will move on.
Cheers! Now I'm going back to vacation.
PS - The column stays. Som is wrong about some thing's, but there's still plenty of value in this discussion. Go ahead and try to hash out what sites DO accept paid reviews.
That moment when u lose all respect for a website you have been a part of for a long time, and previously continued to give the benefit of the doubt.
Just because an article sparks discussion is no reason to leave it up, especially after stating it is indeed full of fallacy. That is unethical, and more importantly accentuates the problem with game journalism today.
Thank goodness for people like Boogie, TotalBiscuit, and Angry Joe.
And on another note, if MMORPG.com had paid reviews, Scarlet Blade and League of Angels would've been the highest rated games of all time, lol. While I don't think they accept some sort of perk or payment for a padded review score, the forum moderation has been known to curve the amount of negative posts a game gets, even if the post is logical, explanatory, and in an orderly manner. I can understand the vulgar troll posts, but when a user posts a legitimate issue with a game it should not just "disappear"
Som, I applaud your efforts over the last two columns. You are a braver man that I to face the insanity of the mob. Maybe someday gamers will realize how great they have it in our corner of the world, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
There are a few of us out there who don't spit on reviewers, who realize that you are people too, and that we all love games, most us care far more about games than we care about money. I know that the journalist/reviewers of the world have a relatively thankless job and get paid crap, and still love every second.
If you have to "prove" you are unbiased, you generally aren't unbiased.
That is not only a logical fallacy since you have no grounds to claim it "generally" happens, but it is also a pretty dangerous mentality. Every person, this includes even a game reviewer, MUST be considered innocent until proven guilty.
It's like saying that no law abiding citizen should be against total invigilation because they obviously have nothing to hide. Four0Six, do you mind that your location is tracked and all your mails, phone calls and bills are stored by the CIA? Obviously, if you had nothing to hide you wouldn't mind that at all, right? And if you do mind, then does it mean you are generally guilty and should be immediately detained.
Blind trust and blind faith are just that blind.
You comparing my privacy to having general skepticism is a Red Herring fallacy, (see what I did there). I by no means should believe everyone and everything they say to be true on face value, and neither should you.
I do believe that one can "generally" feel free to question those, who like in this article, claim to be "pure, upstanding, full of virtue," blah blah blah. Been there done that so to speak. Watched 2 decades of adult politics. Spent a childhood being raised in a fundamentalist religion. I am quite the opposite of a "true believer'.
Protip: If I have to tell you I am not a liar, I probably am. If I am not a liar, you already know.
Currently on vacation with my family. I did not see Som's article until today. I can however say that WE DO NOT accept payment for reviews, but some companies have tried. Usually Eastern imported MMOs, and never a big AAA company.
And I know for a fact of two of our direct competitors who DO accept $$$ for their favorable reviews. I won't say who without proof to back it up. But they're not likely the kind of sites that most of our readers would visit outside of good Google Search returns. They don't have the community that Massively and MMORPG support.
And if those sites do it, it's highly likely that other sites across other genres and countries do as well.
So while you may not agree with scores we sometimes give, they've never been paid for.
For the TSW COLUMN: we honestly just see good traffic on those, as the game has a following here and abroad. Niche though it may be. We generally write what you guys read, so if people stop clicking TSW columns, we will move on.
Cheers! Now I'm going back to vacation.
PS - The column stays. Som is wrong about some thing's, but there's still plenty of value in this discussion. Go ahead and try to hash out what sites DO accept paid reviews.
Enjoy your vacation. I, for one, DO believe that this is one of the last remaining sites to sell out, which is why I'm here almost every day. I don't post often, but I'm here a lot. Anyway, thanks for popping in to post this.
I used to use both this site and another major site for my gaming news. Then the other one sold the rest of their credibility in a sickeningly obvious fashion. So this is the only place now. Which is why I have Adblock Plus disabled on this site. I *want* you to make money from advertisements and keep doing what you're doing.
I certainly don't agree with all of the reviews here, but I read most of them anyway.
Currently on vacation with my family. I did not see Som's article until today. I can however say that WE DO NOT accept payment for reviews, but some companies have tried. Usually Eastern imported MMOs, and never a big AAA company.
And I know for a fact of two of our direct competitors who DO accept $$$ for their favorable reviews. I won't say who without proof to back it up. But they're not likely the kind of sites that most of our readers would visit outside of good Google Search returns. They don't have the community that Massively and MMORPG support.
And if those sites do it, it's highly likely that other sites across other genres and countries do as well.
So while you may not agree with scores we sometimes give, they've never been paid for.
For the TSW COLUMN: we honestly just see good traffic on those, as the game has a following here and abroad. Niche though it may be. We generally write what you guys read, so if people stop clicking TSW columns, we will move on.
Cheers! Now I'm going back to vacation.
PS - The column stays. Som is wrong about some thing's, but there's still plenty of value in this discussion. Go ahead and try to hash out what sites DO accept paid reviews.
I appreciate the condor of your reply, Bill. Respectfully, I would suggest that a change in title for the article would be good. Using the term myth is unnecessarily provocative and somewhat undermines the discussion to the extent that it suggests a position of total denial rather than one of good faith in the discussion.
And if they are paid? What's going to happen? what are YOU going to do about it? Are you going to stand up a 'watch dog' organisation to monitor all game reviews? How? What is the end state here? Murphy throws some doubt on other sites and wants us to believe his site is squeaky clean? More smoke and mirrors, lol it's THOSE guys not us.
Anyway, in the end it does not matter, no one here will change what game reviewers do or fail to do. The only person you can trust to tell you if you are going to like a game or not, is you. Read the reviews, or don't in the end only you can decide.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
yeah I've read some "reviews" that sound more like fanboi rants that have gone as far as to name and compare competitors. there was a harder push for Wildstar than ESO for ie. and what are the numbers saying now? WS population dive and ESO has steady growth. I think aside from reviewers being less reliable their relevance should be considered. I check steam ratings generally but ultimately decide for myself on pics and videos of game play. Do you read reviews for the music you like? same thing Mr. reviewer, it's a matter of taste.
do other more relevant reviewers decline gifts? what you have to remember is the consumer who pays for an over priced game, swayed by reviews then discovered it was totally not what he wanted gets no consolation. no swag. no refund. I ask the question how closely if at all is the gaming industry policed? say a developer doesn't provide refunds for a product that fails to deliver what is promised?
Som, I applaud your efforts over the last two columns. You are a braver man that I to face the insanity of the mob. Maybe someday gamers will realize how great they have it in our corner of the world, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
There are a few of us out there who don't spit on reviewers, who realize that you are people too, and that we all love games, most us care far more about games than we care about money. I know that the journalist/reviewers of the world have a relatively thankless job and get paid crap, and still love every second.
This column is all fine and all. But by calling it a myth you make the problem sound like its between our ears and not really present. The thing with being bribed is there. There has been evidence and there have been articles about it. Also i don't know where you have been but you post this right after gamergate ((come on people never heard of the gamespot scandal? Gamergate, doritto gate? the post Eurogamer made about bribes in the industry?))......that whole thing was about bribes and how a certain group controls a lot of the scores in general for games (didn't see any MMORPG.com people on the list). So to say its a myth...no that wouldn't be right, that would laugh about the situation and pretend that its not there at all.
Bribes are not just money, and bribes don't have to be obvious. PR people are smart people in general, knowing how to play their game. Their game is to make sure their product comes out as best as possible. Activision for example has mastered this very well. They invite reviewers over for special CoD review events, where reviewers get to play CoD before launch, get good food and free drinks, get goodies, their flight paid and sleeping in rather nice hotel rooms. Eurogamer had a whole article about this. Most reviewers don't even realize it but they often fall for these kind of tricks. You are more likely to write something positive when you are treated like a king/queen. Its not taking a bribe on purpose but it happens.
And we see it back in the scores. Any really unbiased reviewer would never ever give CoD a 8 or a 9. Why not? Cause the same reviewers tend to give games with a lesser budget, less big of a team minor scores for the same mistakes CoD makes.
How can you justify giving a game a 8 or a 9 when:
1. The AI is stupid, its a basic AI that is programed to follow a routine. Its linear, redo certain parts over and over again and you will see the AI does the same thing over and over again. Even though the game FEAR had a amazing AI and that game is many years old now. Even in the newest CoD you can see how stupid the AI is..a grenade hovers infront of his eyes...he looks at it, turns a little and continues shooting at you and after a few seconds the grenade finally explodes..why isn't this AI seeking cover or jump away...jumping away we see happening in games over 10 years old, pretty sure CoD can do it as well.
2. There is only a minimum of content you get for a price of 60 euro's, even on the pc you pay that price (average pc game is 45 - 50 euro's). You get about 4 - 5 hour single player campaign and only a few multiplayer maps to play on. The rest of the maps you need to buy for 15 euro's, meaning 25% of the initial price. How can you justify that when the game comes out every year and does the same trick every year, that is not a 8 or a 9.
3. Outdated graphics, they used the same engine for longer then they should have. I know games are not about graphics, but the same reviewers complain about the graphics of lesser budget games so there for they should withdraw points for it with CoD as well. Even the newest CoD that is in the making looks outdated and not very impressive.
4. Not the next step within the genre. How often i have to read with other shooters that they aren't doing anything new to the genre. Yet with CoD it never seems to be a issue. No point removed either.
It might not be on purpose but the reviewers are completely in the pocket at that point. As you said yourself "any reviewer worth her/his salt can separate personal relationships and privileges from objective review scores." well sadly many of the "proffesionals" can't seem to seperate those things. IGN and Gamespot are well known for giving insane high scores to certain big titles. The same titles that often generate the most income for advertisements. These websites never really do much to prevent people getting doubts about their honesty. I have often asked about the whole CoD thing. Always compared it with another shooter that scored far less while they wheren't worse or better. Just comparing the reviews and noticing that CoD never got punished. They never bothered to anwser it as they damn well know that they can't explain it. And yes they do respond on other messages, heck they even respond on the messages from people who make them out for a lot of horrible things. So surely they could reply to a none agressive post with a simple question why CoD gets a 9 and shooter x a 6.5 while shooter x might even have a better AI, but was just made by a smaller team with a lesser budget.
Now there is another thing. It is not so much of taking a bribe but it still gives that sugestion. Plenty of reviewers are fans of certain games. That is fine, I'm fan of certain games so is any other gamer, the press not excluded. The problem however is when these fans are fanboys and write a review in a unbiased way. For example i read a dutch game magazine called the Power Unlimited. When Rome 2 came out they gave it a 9 or a 9.2 even. Trough out the whole review you wouldn't read once about the many (game breaking) bugs this game had. He was so positive about the game, making it sound like the game was amazing and the next step in in the Total War games.
It is no secret that Rome 2 was a disaster. We all seen the many youtube movies with the horrible graphic glitches, the dumb AI, boats that where rowing trough the ground, units that couldn't enter or leave a boat, many many other bugs that ruined the experience.
It wasn't that he was bribed. Its just if you know that reviewer, you know he is a great fan of Creative Assembly, he also gave Stormrise a 8....yeah that unplayable piece of &(&^* RTS with a broken AI and worse...broken controls.
This is the kind of behavior that makes people think someone is bribed as well. Though its more that the reviewer himself is just blinded by his/her love for the series or the developer even. Something that happens often enough and makes you doubt the profesionallity of those reviewers who do that. It's not their job to promote a game, it's their job to look at a game, see what is good about them and see what is bad about them .They need to tell us if the game is worth the purchase or not. Especially with the high prices of today. It is important to point out the bad sides of games as well as we pay for it. It is up to me to decide if those bad things are something to overlook or not. It's not up to the reviewer to skip over them or only mention them quickly as its not a big deal.
To finish this long post off. People do tend to shout a reviewer got bribed way to fast. Just as they will shout "he is a xbox/playstation/pc fanboy". There will always be these people who don't agree with the score and there for will say the reviewer has been bribed. That is insane. Sometimes people think a game deserves a much higher score and will say the reviewer prefers the xbox cause he gave a playstation exclusive a 7 instead of a 9.
We see this happen all the time and that makes it seem like gamers are just hysterical screamers who shout anything if they don't see the score they think a game deserves. However there is a lot of corruption going on behind the scenes. Bribes are there and calling it a myth is doing disservice to the honesty of the industry. Not saying all the blames are true, but a lot is and certain games always get the positive reviews without going much into the problems those games have.
Look MMORPG might be honest in their reviews and having special checks in place. But a lot of websites don't. Not to mention that youtube is very popular today and you have some big name youtubers there who have a lot of fans. This is in the interest of companies to make sure these youtubers are positive about their games so it sells better. Again under what rock have you been when you say its a myth when we just had Total Biscuit post about the whole Shadow of Mordors things where the publisher tried to have youtubers give positive reviews and not mention any of the bugs etc before launch. In return they would get a free copy to play before the launch of the game. How is this a myth? You think TB just posts this on his twitter for fun? Knowing damn well that this puts him on a blacklist? Knowing damn well that other people will look into this and burn him down if he is lying. Others showed it as well. Its a pretty big thing atm....so don't call it a myth.
I can understand that it all hurts to see this happening to your profession. And all i can say is, just do your best to keep yourself believeable. Keep knowing what is professional and what isn't. Don't see comments aimed at IGN and Gamepot and such as a attack on MMORPG.com, they are not. And don't think to much about people who shout "you are being bribed, you gave game x a 8 while it deserves a 9.5!" or "it was a 5 not a 8 you been bribed!". If people really think you are being bribed they can motivate it. They would be able to make comparisons and show on what parts they think you are bribed. If they can't do that, and can only shout "you are so bribed" then it's most likely just a screamer who doesn't agree with the score. Don't think to much of that okay. Just keep doing your job as good as you can.
Currently on vacation with my family. I did not see Som's article until today. I can however say that WE DO NOT accept payment for reviews, but some companies have tried. Usually Eastern imported MMOs, and never a big AAA company.
And I know for a fact of two of our direct competitors who DO accept $$$ for their favorable reviews. I won't say who without proof to back it up. But they're not likely the kind of sites that most of our readers would visit outside of good Google Search returns. They don't have the community that Massively and MMORPG support.
And if those sites do it, it's highly likely that other sites across other genres and countries do as well.
So while you may not agree with scores we sometimes give, they've never been paid for.
For the TSW COLUMN: we honestly just see good traffic on those, as the game has a following here and abroad. Niche though it may be. We generally write what you guys read, so if people stop clicking TSW columns, we will move on.
Cheers! Now I'm going back to vacation.
PS - The column stays. Som is wrong about some thing's, but there's still plenty of value in this discussion. Go ahead and try to hash out what sites DO accept paid reviews.
While i do believe they havent been paid for, you guys have a nasty habit of letting people who are CLEAR fanbois review games. I've literally not read one review on this site that wasn't dripping with glee. Yeah, i know, its hard to make someone who might not like a game play it for 20 or 30 hours to get a good feel for it. Its easier to let someone who wants to do the job, do the job. But at the end of the day it cheapens the product.
Regardless, just my 2c.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Som, I applaud your efforts over the last two columns. You are a braver man that I to face the insanity of the mob. Maybe someday gamers will realize how great they have it in our corner of the world, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
There are a few of us out there who don't spit on reviewers, who realize that you are people too, and that we all love games, most us care far more about games than we care about money. I know that the journalist/reviewers of the world have a relatively thankless job and get paid crap, and still love every second.
/salute
/salute
Yeah, what a HORRIBLE job, getting paid (even if its shit pay) to sit around and play video games and write about. I would so much rather work in a call center, or get a job shoveling trash into a furnace, you know or any number of the 900 million other jobs that suck far more than being a gaming "journalist".
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
A myth is a story based on some facts. Although I doubt that money exchanging hands for a good review is rare, the other forms of carrot and the stick I am sure is happening.
However, just because a reviewer is biased does not mean that he/she is being paid. If it were I would have to accuse Bill Murphy of being paid by every action-combat MMO
An in-depth review I believe is the best protection against the "paid for the review" claim. A truly deep review will tell the reader what happens in the game and less on what the reviewer likes and dislikes about the game. MMORPG is second only to Massively in this and it is one of the reasons that I am an MMORPG fan.
FORMER Community Manager for a large scale game. Says enough really.
The thing you are failing to realise in writing this article is that the phenomenon of "paid for" reviews and previews has been demonstrated to be a truism, and is not open to debate or rebuke. The most recent case is Shadows of Mordor, where publisher Warner Bro's would only release pre-release review copies of the game to outlets and organisations that agreed to present the game in a particular light. It has been widely publicised and reported on, and has been demonstrated to be true through first-hand evidence rather than speculation.
Why, indeed, would you choose to write this article in the shadow of... erm... Mordor? Why would you write an article biased AGAINST the idea that paid-for reviews and previews happen when we have a major example of it to offer up so easily?
There is a reason you are a former community manager for a large game publisher now working for a site widely regarded as one of the most "paid for" video gaming sites in the industry, and it's not because you are good at your job (as is evidenced by the sheer ignorance about the actual topic at hand). Put your foot in it much?
It suggests a highly defensive posture from MMORPG.com, and attempt to reassure your users that the articles you offer are not paid for when, indeed, they often are. I'm not suggesting that they all are, but it would be safe to say that
Goes a bit far by saying MMORPG.com is one of the most paid for video gaming sites. Got anything to back that up? As i wrote in my response there is also a huge issue with reviewers who are fan's of either certain games or developers and tend to favor them and not mention the bad things.
Same goes for readers that a lot of readers tend to shout a site is bribed cause they don't agree with the score. I see people complaining about SWToR. Saying the score is way to high. I play SWToR and i love the game, i think the score is well suited (not the 9's but around 8 sure i think that is a good score for SWToR). Don't forget that we sometimes have a hate towards a certain game and then think its all being bribed cause the score is too high, just because we don't like the game very much.
I agree in large parts with your post that it is insane this article even exist and talks about a myth while there is evidence all over the place. How for the last two years we on a regular base get the evidence revealed to us all. Those who deny it are either super blind, living under a rock or indeed are bribe takers themselves and going in ultra defense mode.
If any this article can be used best for the sad state game "journalism" has gone into. A problem i have with a lot of reviewers these day's is that it are a bunch of people who don't do any research. So often things are just written without any proper research, i would love to see what the writer of this article is gonna say. I only saw him respond once and that was on a comment from someone who stands up for game journalists and call him brave. I mean wtf? So you got time to take the salute and salute back, but you don't have the time or words to defend your whole point of calling it a myth while people trow evidence left and right about the bribes in the game journalist world.
I'm not calling him names, but i do want to know what he was thinking when he posted this article. How in his mind he came with the idea that its just a myth. How he thinks its right to belittle people who are upset about the state of game journalism and pretty much suggests we are overreacting. This while even other game journalists more then once wrote articles about the bribes and admitted that its going on in the scene. This after gamergate where a lot of things came to surface that i rather not had known, this after Total Biscuit revealed the bribes done by WB to make their game come out positive in reviews before the game was released (and the game isn't even bad so why did they think they needed to do this?). Really Som, instead of only responding to the salute and feel proud about that. How about you try to awnser the question why you think its okay to call it a Myth with all the cold hard evidence presented to you. Where have you been lately that you forgot about that all?
Yeah game journalists have a thankless job. So what? I'm a movie editor, do you think i ever get compliments? All i get to hear is when things aren't done right in the movies so i have to adjust that for the client. I don't get to ever hear how great they liked the movie when they like it. That's part of the job. If you have a job where you review games, then be prepared to get reviewed yourself. You got the people who overreact but among all the posts about this article there are some pretty spot on comments that deserve to be responded too more then a lousy salute that gives you pride.
Originally posted by Four0Six If you have to "prove" you are unbiased, you generally aren't unbiased.
Good point as bias is a perception. If one "looks" like they are biased, nothing they say can change that "perception."
From the article: "For most top-tier gaming websites, theres a clear division between the editorial department and everything else. The people who do ad sales should most certainly not be the same people doing the writing. " That does not matter. Sales people have to try to sell advertising space. If the site (magazine, TV show, what have you) gives "bad press", that sale person's job is not easy. They may not be the same people, but they definitely work hand in hand.
Consumer Reports, a magazine devoted to unbiased reporting, is NOT ad funded, but subscriber funded. ANY news/review outlet that is ad funded has pressure they have to deal with. Advertisers will, and do, threaten to pull ads. There goes the income.
This has been going on ever since marketing was invented You sell ads, you are automatically tip-toeing around those advertisers. True, some companies do not care and just want their name plastered wherever they can get the space, but piss off enough advertisers and you will go out of business.
Money may not pass from the game makers to the reviewers directly, but there is definitely a sense of "Do not bite the hand that feeds you" going on.
"Myth." Not the best choice of words. That implies 100% unprovable. I do not think that fits here. It is a whole different ball of wax if a reader may not agree with a reviewer. That does not make it a myth.
MMORPG.com is kind of a different set-up, from what I understand. They have only a few specific ad spaces, and the rest are "database" ads, pulling from a pool of advertisers.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Four0Six If you have to "prove" you are unbiased, you generally aren't unbiased.
Good point as bias is a perception. If one "looks" like they are biased, nothing they say can change that "perception."
Lesson to employees from management #1: Perceptions are real.
I am your manager and I walk through the office past your desk every day at 12:30. You take lunch from 12:00 - 1:00 and during lunch you check your Facebook page. I see this every day and perceive you are always on Facebook.
Is it true? No.
Is is real? Yes, and your next review will reflect it.
It doesn't matter what you actually do, it matters how it's perceived because that's where people form opinions. MMORPG.com, you made two misses:
1. You tried to dispell the perceptions.
2. You published the article in the first place.
If you didn't think this would turn out badly, then may I suggest hiring someone well-versed in business acumen.
Yes, we will take the media's advice on how the media is not corrupt.
Gamergate happened for a reason, and it also proved that the gaming media has serious corruption issues.
As for this site, its simple. Reviews for all games are insane on the positive side and isn't until an MMO has been out for a while before we suddenly start to see most of the negative issues being spoken about, the same issues people are warned/banned for even mentioning on the forums while the "positive" reviews are being given.
And its all tagged as being "overly negative" during those times.
All the proof anyone needs that this site has issues also and not representing the gamers, but the game companies and thus cannot actually do its job, the job of informing people about the games.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
I come for the pictures. The reviews here lack depth most of the time - rarely do I walk away from an mmorpg article feeling like I've learned something significant.
Is someone trying to tell me Ripper X reviews were not total BS?They smelled of ass kissing that anyone with an IQ over 15 would notice,i mean seriously there was an agenda behind his reviews.
You also can't say EVERY single game is awesome and can't wait to continue playing it unless you have 200 hours in a day to play 2000 games.
He would make the most obvious 20 year old tech sound like it was just invented and super amazing,his act got real old and gave this site a bad rep for allowing it to continue for so long.
No reviewers are not paid for the most part by devs,does not mean it doesn't happen,but they ARE paid by web sites that benefit from advertising.So in a very small roundabout way it is the hand feeds the hand feeds the hand.
Even so who cares weather they are getting paid by developers?Their reviews are quite often suspicious,as in sometimes it looks like copy paste and other times they are obviously ass kissing for some agenda.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't believe professional reviewers get actual money, a car, or anything like that for writing positive reviews. I think it works just like in many organizations that have a working relationship with others.
If a reviewer feels a game is crap he/she can't come out and say that. But they can hint at it and sugar coat it in a professional way. After all everyone has to work together and you would have to be very diplomatic in how things are said. I think if a reviewer develops a rep for being a hard a** then the game companies will think twice when granting them interviews and won't even think about giving them heads up on special projects.
In my line of work I had to deal with the press a lot and was told something which was good to remember. Getting mad at them or seeking to one-up them does little good as they will always have the last word in the story they report to the public. Best to be cool, paint a professional picture, and never let personal feelings get in the way.
Independent reviewers are in the some boat. If they have a history of saying that sucks, game companies won't want to have much to do with them. If that reviewer needs to have copies of the game given to them for reviews they learn to be diplomatic about what they say.
The average gamers on the other hand can say just about what they want. What can the game companies do? But to expect trash talking from professionals who do it for a living just will not happen. Unless of course they're having a really bad day which can happen to any of us, but that's what checks and balances are for...
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Comments
Nice, some honesty. Thanks Bill
That moment when u lose all respect for a website you have been a part of for a long time, and previously continued to give the benefit of the doubt.
Just because an article sparks discussion is no reason to leave it up, especially after stating it is indeed full of fallacy. That is unethical, and more importantly accentuates the problem with game journalism today.
Thank goodness for people like Boogie, TotalBiscuit, and Angry Joe.
And on another note, if MMORPG.com had paid reviews, Scarlet Blade and League of Angels would've been the highest rated games of all time, lol. While I don't think they accept some sort of perk or payment for a padded review score, the forum moderation has been known to curve the amount of negative posts a game gets, even if the post is logical, explanatory, and in an orderly manner. I can understand the vulgar troll posts, but when a user posts a legitimate issue with a game it should not just "disappear"
Exactly. Just reading the reviews tell you that.
Make no mistake, MMORPG.com is rife with bias and favoritism. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that extended to paid review scores.
I don't really buy into the conspiracy theories about paid game reviews brought to you by Carl's Jr.
MMORPG's reviews are legit, by the way. NO sarcasm intended there. Good folks around these parts.
Som, I applaud your efforts over the last two columns. You are a braver man that I to face the insanity of the mob. Maybe someday gamers will realize how great they have it in our corner of the world, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
There are a few of us out there who don't spit on reviewers, who realize that you are people too, and that we all love games, most us care far more about games than we care about money. I know that the journalist/reviewers of the world have a relatively thankless job and get paid crap, and still love every second.
/salute
Blind trust and blind faith are just that blind.
You comparing my privacy to having general skepticism is a Red Herring fallacy, (see what I did there). I by no means should believe everyone and everything they say to be true on face value, and neither should you.
I do believe that one can "generally" feel free to question those, who like in this article, claim to be "pure, upstanding, full of virtue," blah blah blah. Been there done that so to speak. Watched 2 decades of adult politics. Spent a childhood being raised in a fundamentalist religion. I am quite the opposite of a "true believer'.
Protip: If I have to tell you I am not a liar, I probably am. If I am not a liar, you already know.
Enjoy your vacation. I, for one, DO believe that this is one of the last remaining sites to sell out, which is why I'm here almost every day. I don't post often, but I'm here a lot. Anyway, thanks for popping in to post this.
I used to use both this site and another major site for my gaming news. Then the other one sold the rest of their credibility in a sickeningly obvious fashion. So this is the only place now. Which is why I have Adblock Plus disabled on this site. I *want* you to make money from advertisements and keep doing what you're doing.
I certainly don't agree with all of the reviews here, but I read most of them anyway.
I appreciate the condor of your reply, Bill. Respectfully, I would suggest that a change in title for the article would be good. Using the term myth is unnecessarily provocative and somewhat undermines the discussion to the extent that it suggests a position of total denial rather than one of good faith in the discussion.
And if they are paid? What's going to happen? what are YOU going to do about it? Are you going to stand up a 'watch dog' organisation to monitor all game reviews? How? What is the end state here? Murphy throws some doubt on other sites and wants us to believe his site is squeaky clean? More smoke and mirrors, lol it's THOSE guys not us.
Anyway, in the end it does not matter, no one here will change what game reviewers do or fail to do. The only person you can trust to tell you if you are going to like a game or not, is you. Read the reviews, or don't in the end only you can decide.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
and what are the numbers saying now?
WS population dive and ESO has steady growth. I think aside from reviewers being less reliable their relevance should be considered.
I check steam ratings generally but ultimately decide for myself on pics and videos of game play. Do you read reviews for the music you like? same thing Mr. reviewer, it's a matter of taste.
what you have to remember is the consumer who pays for an over priced game, swayed by reviews then discovered it was totally not what he wanted gets no consolation. no swag.
no refund. I ask the question how closely if at all is the gaming industry policed? say a developer doesn't provide refunds for a product that fails to deliver what is promised?
/salute
*warning, long post ahead*
This column is all fine and all. But by calling it a myth you make the problem sound like its between our ears and not really present. The thing with being bribed is there. There has been evidence and there have been articles about it. Also i don't know where you have been but you post this right after gamergate ((come on people never heard of the gamespot scandal? Gamergate, doritto gate? the post Eurogamer made about bribes in the industry?))......that whole thing was about bribes and how a certain group controls a lot of the scores in general for games (didn't see any MMORPG.com people on the list). So to say its a myth...no that wouldn't be right, that would laugh about the situation and pretend that its not there at all.
Bribes are not just money, and bribes don't have to be obvious. PR people are smart people in general, knowing how to play their game. Their game is to make sure their product comes out as best as possible. Activision for example has mastered this very well. They invite reviewers over for special CoD review events, where reviewers get to play CoD before launch, get good food and free drinks, get goodies, their flight paid and sleeping in rather nice hotel rooms. Eurogamer had a whole article about this. Most reviewers don't even realize it but they often fall for these kind of tricks. You are more likely to write something positive when you are treated like a king/queen. Its not taking a bribe on purpose but it happens.
And we see it back in the scores. Any really unbiased reviewer would never ever give CoD a 8 or a 9. Why not? Cause the same reviewers tend to give games with a lesser budget, less big of a team minor scores for the same mistakes CoD makes.
How can you justify giving a game a 8 or a 9 when:
1. The AI is stupid, its a basic AI that is programed to follow a routine. Its linear, redo certain parts over and over again and you will see the AI does the same thing over and over again. Even though the game FEAR had a amazing AI and that game is many years old now. Even in the newest CoD you can see how stupid the AI is..a grenade hovers infront of his eyes...he looks at it, turns a little and continues shooting at you and after a few seconds the grenade finally explodes..why isn't this AI seeking cover or jump away...jumping away we see happening in games over 10 years old, pretty sure CoD can do it as well.
2. There is only a minimum of content you get for a price of 60 euro's, even on the pc you pay that price (average pc game is 45 - 50 euro's). You get about 4 - 5 hour single player campaign and only a few multiplayer maps to play on. The rest of the maps you need to buy for 15 euro's, meaning 25% of the initial price. How can you justify that when the game comes out every year and does the same trick every year, that is not a 8 or a 9.
3. Outdated graphics, they used the same engine for longer then they should have. I know games are not about graphics, but the same reviewers complain about the graphics of lesser budget games so there for they should withdraw points for it with CoD as well. Even the newest CoD that is in the making looks outdated and not very impressive.
4. Not the next step within the genre. How often i have to read with other shooters that they aren't doing anything new to the genre. Yet with CoD it never seems to be a issue. No point removed either.
It might not be on purpose but the reviewers are completely in the pocket at that point. As you said yourself "any reviewer worth her/his salt can separate personal relationships and privileges from objective review scores." well sadly many of the "proffesionals" can't seem to seperate those things. IGN and Gamespot are well known for giving insane high scores to certain big titles. The same titles that often generate the most income for advertisements. These websites never really do much to prevent people getting doubts about their honesty. I have often asked about the whole CoD thing. Always compared it with another shooter that scored far less while they wheren't worse or better. Just comparing the reviews and noticing that CoD never got punished. They never bothered to anwser it as they damn well know that they can't explain it. And yes they do respond on other messages, heck they even respond on the messages from people who make them out for a lot of horrible things. So surely they could reply to a none agressive post with a simple question why CoD gets a 9 and shooter x a 6.5 while shooter x might even have a better AI, but was just made by a smaller team with a lesser budget.
Now there is another thing. It is not so much of taking a bribe but it still gives that sugestion. Plenty of reviewers are fans of certain games. That is fine, I'm fan of certain games so is any other gamer, the press not excluded. The problem however is when these fans are fanboys and write a review in a unbiased way. For example i read a dutch game magazine called the Power Unlimited. When Rome 2 came out they gave it a 9 or a 9.2 even. Trough out the whole review you wouldn't read once about the many (game breaking) bugs this game had. He was so positive about the game, making it sound like the game was amazing and the next step in in the Total War games.
It is no secret that Rome 2 was a disaster. We all seen the many youtube movies with the horrible graphic glitches, the dumb AI, boats that where rowing trough the ground, units that couldn't enter or leave a boat, many many other bugs that ruined the experience.
It wasn't that he was bribed. Its just if you know that reviewer, you know he is a great fan of Creative Assembly, he also gave Stormrise a 8....yeah that unplayable piece of &(&^* RTS with a broken AI and worse...broken controls.
This is the kind of behavior that makes people think someone is bribed as well. Though its more that the reviewer himself is just blinded by his/her love for the series or the developer even. Something that happens often enough and makes you doubt the profesionallity of those reviewers who do that. It's not their job to promote a game, it's their job to look at a game, see what is good about them and see what is bad about them .They need to tell us if the game is worth the purchase or not. Especially with the high prices of today. It is important to point out the bad sides of games as well as we pay for it. It is up to me to decide if those bad things are something to overlook or not. It's not up to the reviewer to skip over them or only mention them quickly as its not a big deal.
To finish this long post off. People do tend to shout a reviewer got bribed way to fast. Just as they will shout "he is a xbox/playstation/pc fanboy". There will always be these people who don't agree with the score and there for will say the reviewer has been bribed. That is insane. Sometimes people think a game deserves a much higher score and will say the reviewer prefers the xbox cause he gave a playstation exclusive a 7 instead of a 9.
We see this happen all the time and that makes it seem like gamers are just hysterical screamers who shout anything if they don't see the score they think a game deserves. However there is a lot of corruption going on behind the scenes. Bribes are there and calling it a myth is doing disservice to the honesty of the industry. Not saying all the blames are true, but a lot is and certain games always get the positive reviews without going much into the problems those games have.
Look MMORPG might be honest in their reviews and having special checks in place. But a lot of websites don't. Not to mention that youtube is very popular today and you have some big name youtubers there who have a lot of fans. This is in the interest of companies to make sure these youtubers are positive about their games so it sells better. Again under what rock have you been when you say its a myth when we just had Total Biscuit post about the whole Shadow of Mordors things where the publisher tried to have youtubers give positive reviews and not mention any of the bugs etc before launch. In return they would get a free copy to play before the launch of the game. How is this a myth? You think TB just posts this on his twitter for fun? Knowing damn well that this puts him on a blacklist? Knowing damn well that other people will look into this and burn him down if he is lying. Others showed it as well. Its a pretty big thing atm....so don't call it a myth.
I can understand that it all hurts to see this happening to your profession. And all i can say is, just do your best to keep yourself believeable. Keep knowing what is professional and what isn't. Don't see comments aimed at IGN and Gamepot and such as a attack on MMORPG.com, they are not. And don't think to much about people who shout "you are being bribed, you gave game x a 8 while it deserves a 9.5!" or "it was a 5 not a 8 you been bribed!". If people really think you are being bribed they can motivate it. They would be able to make comparisons and show on what parts they think you are bribed. If they can't do that, and can only shout "you are so bribed" then it's most likely just a screamer who doesn't agree with the score. Don't think to much of that okay. Just keep doing your job as good as you can.
While i do believe they havent been paid for, you guys have a nasty habit of letting people who are CLEAR fanbois review games. I've literally not read one review on this site that wasn't dripping with glee. Yeah, i know, its hard to make someone who might not like a game play it for 20 or 30 hours to get a good feel for it. Its easier to let someone who wants to do the job, do the job. But at the end of the day it cheapens the product.
Regardless, just my 2c.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Yeah, what a HORRIBLE job, getting paid (even if its shit pay) to sit around and play video games and write about. I would so much rather work in a call center, or get a job shoveling trash into a furnace, you know or any number of the 900 million other jobs that suck far more than being a gaming "journalist".
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
A myth is a story based on some facts. Although I doubt that money exchanging hands for a good review is rare, the other forms of carrot and the stick I am sure is happening.
However, just because a reviewer is biased does not mean that he/she is being paid. If it were I would have to accuse Bill Murphy of being paid by every action-combat MMO
An in-depth review I believe is the best protection against the "paid for the review" claim. A truly deep review will tell the reader what happens in the game and less on what the reviewer likes and dislikes about the game. MMORPG is second only to Massively in this and it is one of the reasons that I am an MMORPG fan.
Goes a bit far by saying MMORPG.com is one of the most paid for video gaming sites. Got anything to back that up? As i wrote in my response there is also a huge issue with reviewers who are fan's of either certain games or developers and tend to favor them and not mention the bad things.
Same goes for readers that a lot of readers tend to shout a site is bribed cause they don't agree with the score. I see people complaining about SWToR. Saying the score is way to high. I play SWToR and i love the game, i think the score is well suited (not the 9's but around 8 sure i think that is a good score for SWToR). Don't forget that we sometimes have a hate towards a certain game and then think its all being bribed cause the score is too high, just because we don't like the game very much.
I agree in large parts with your post that it is insane this article even exist and talks about a myth while there is evidence all over the place. How for the last two years we on a regular base get the evidence revealed to us all. Those who deny it are either super blind, living under a rock or indeed are bribe takers themselves and going in ultra defense mode.
If any this article can be used best for the sad state game "journalism" has gone into. A problem i have with a lot of reviewers these day's is that it are a bunch of people who don't do any research. So often things are just written without any proper research, i would love to see what the writer of this article is gonna say. I only saw him respond once and that was on a comment from someone who stands up for game journalists and call him brave. I mean wtf? So you got time to take the salute and salute back, but you don't have the time or words to defend your whole point of calling it a myth while people trow evidence left and right about the bribes in the game journalist world.
I'm not calling him names, but i do want to know what he was thinking when he posted this article. How in his mind he came with the idea that its just a myth. How he thinks its right to belittle people who are upset about the state of game journalism and pretty much suggests we are overreacting. This while even other game journalists more then once wrote articles about the bribes and admitted that its going on in the scene. This after gamergate where a lot of things came to surface that i rather not had known, this after Total Biscuit revealed the bribes done by WB to make their game come out positive in reviews before the game was released (and the game isn't even bad so why did they think they needed to do this?). Really Som, instead of only responding to the salute and feel proud about that. How about you try to awnser the question why you think its okay to call it a Myth with all the cold hard evidence presented to you. Where have you been lately that you forgot about that all?
Yeah game journalists have a thankless job. So what? I'm a movie editor, do you think i ever get compliments? All i get to hear is when things aren't done right in the movies so i have to adjust that for the client. I don't get to ever hear how great they liked the movie when they like it. That's part of the job. If you have a job where you review games, then be prepared to get reviewed yourself. You got the people who overreact but among all the posts about this article there are some pretty spot on comments that deserve to be responded too more then a lousy salute that gives you pride.
From the article:
"For most top-tier gaming websites, theres a clear division between the editorial department and everything else. The people who do ad sales should most certainly not be the same people doing the writing. "
That does not matter. Sales people have to try to sell advertising space. If the site (magazine, TV show, what have you) gives "bad press", that sale person's job is not easy. They may not be the same people, but they definitely work hand in hand.
Consumer Reports, a magazine devoted to unbiased reporting, is NOT ad funded, but subscriber funded. ANY news/review outlet that is ad funded has pressure they have to deal with. Advertisers will, and do, threaten to pull ads. There goes the income.
This has been going on ever since marketing was invented
You sell ads, you are automatically tip-toeing around those advertisers. True, some companies do not care and just want their name plastered wherever they can get the space, but piss off enough advertisers and you will go out of business.
Money may not pass from the game makers to the reviewers directly, but there is definitely a sense of "Do not bite the hand that feeds you" going on.
"Myth." Not the best choice of words. That implies 100% unprovable. I do not think that fits here. It is a whole different ball of wax if a reader may not agree with a reviewer. That does not make it a myth.
MMORPG.com is kind of a different set-up, from what I understand. They have only a few specific ad spaces, and the rest are "database" ads, pulling from a pool of advertisers.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I have a very novel idea:
Refuse to accept "gifts" from companies you are reviewing, no matter how small the swag is.
Don't allow them to pay for your food and drink, travel expenses, or lodging.
Don't attend parties to socialize with the developers.
If all this stuff is "No Big Deal", it won't hurt to skip out on it to remove any suspicion of collusion.
Lesson to employees from management #1: Perceptions are real.
I am your manager and I walk through the office past your desk every day at 12:30. You take lunch from 12:00 - 1:00 and during lunch you check your Facebook page. I see this every day and perceive you are always on Facebook.
Is it true? No.
Is is real? Yes, and your next review will reflect it.
It doesn't matter what you actually do, it matters how it's perceived because that's where people form opinions. MMORPG.com, you made two misses:
1. You tried to dispell the perceptions.
2. You published the article in the first place.
If you didn't think this would turn out badly, then may I suggest hiring someone well-versed in business acumen.
Like that is going to ever happen...
Yes, we will take the media's advice on how the media is not corrupt.
Gamergate happened for a reason, and it also proved that the gaming media has serious corruption issues.
As for this site, its simple. Reviews for all games are insane on the positive side and isn't until an MMO has been out for a while before we suddenly start to see most of the negative issues being spoken about, the same issues people are warned/banned for even mentioning on the forums while the "positive" reviews are being given.
And its all tagged as being "overly negative" during those times.
All the proof anyone needs that this site has issues also and not representing the gamers, but the game companies and thus cannot actually do its job, the job of informing people about the games.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Is someone trying to tell me Ripper X reviews were not total BS?They smelled of ass kissing that anyone with an IQ over 15 would notice,i mean seriously there was an agenda behind his reviews.
You also can't say EVERY single game is awesome and can't wait to continue playing it unless you have 200 hours in a day to play 2000 games.
He would make the most obvious 20 year old tech sound like it was just invented and super amazing,his act got real old and gave this site a bad rep for allowing it to continue for so long.
No reviewers are not paid for the most part by devs,does not mean it doesn't happen,but they ARE paid by web sites that benefit from advertising.So in a very small roundabout way it is the hand feeds the hand feeds the hand.
Even so who cares weather they are getting paid by developers?Their reviews are quite often suspicious,as in sometimes it looks like copy paste and other times they are obviously ass kissing for some agenda.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't believe professional reviewers get actual money, a car, or anything like that for writing positive reviews. I think it works just like in many organizations that have a working relationship with others.
If a reviewer feels a game is crap he/she can't come out and say that. But they can hint at it and sugar coat it in a professional way. After all everyone has to work together and you would have to be very diplomatic in how things are said. I think if a reviewer develops a rep for being a hard a** then the game companies will think twice when granting them interviews and won't even think about giving them heads up on special projects.
In my line of work I had to deal with the press a lot and was told something which was good to remember. Getting mad at them or seeking to one-up them does little good as they will always have the last word in the story they report to the public. Best to be cool, paint a professional picture, and never let personal feelings get in the way.
Independent reviewers are in the some boat. If they have a history of saying that sucks, game companies won't want to have much to do with them. If that reviewer needs to have copies of the game given to them for reviews they learn to be diplomatic about what they say.
The average gamers on the other hand can say just about what they want. What can the game companies do? But to expect trash talking from professionals who do it for a living just will not happen. Unless of course they're having a really bad day which can happen to any of us, but that's what checks and balances are for...
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey