How much would you pay for better games journalism?

[GloatingSwine]

Because even if something isn't considered a fun toy and just a boring tool, it may still have monetary value and even small favors deserve small favors in return. Reciprocity is a powerful thing.
Then there's the ad revenue, which is a big thing.

Except review copies often don't have monetary value in themselves. They're usually prerelease copies which may not even represent final code (because reviews are intended to come out before release), are occasionally locked to specific networks (Xbox review code operates on a seperate network from Live, for instance), and some PC review copies simply deactivate when the launch rolls around.

The only monetary value is in the work they allow the reviewer to produce, and that work is all done by the reviewer.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because even if something isn't considered a fun toy and just a boring tool, it may still have monetary value and even small favors deserve small favors in return. Reciprocity is a powerful thing.

And yet, you don't see this paranoia in other media where the same is true.

Lack of hard proof will keep them away.

We have no evidence to support that claim. Games journalism is derided for running with unconfirmed crap all the time--often not even bothering to describe it as rumour or report. In fact, there seems to be little consequence to being wrong.

 

[veloper]

Because even if something isn't considered a fun toy and just a boring tool, it may still have monetary value and even small favors deserve small favors in return. Reciprocity is a powerful thing.
Then there's the ad revenue, which is a big thing.

Except review copies often don't have monetary value in themselves. They're usually prerelease copies which may not even represent final code (because reviews are intended to come out before release), are occasionally locked to specific networks (Xbox review code operates on a seperate network from Live, for instance), and some PC review copies simply deactivate when the launch rolls around.

The only monetary value is in the work they allow the reviewer to produce, and that work is all done by the reviewer.

On the contrary, a pre-release copy may be the ONLY copy that has any real value, to the reviewer. He cannot pirate it and publish his review on time, because the publisher knows exactly who received their review copies. If he waits longer, he may lose page view hits which thus lose money.
What you really need and cannot get anywhere else is the most valuable thing.

 

[veloper]

Because even if something isn't considered a fun toy and just a boring tool, it may still have monetary value and even small favors deserve small favors in return. Reciprocity is a powerful thing.

And yet, you don't see this paranoia in other media where the same is true.

The dirt in other fields is also there to be found, if you're willing to look for it.
I have on my shelf a book by Ted Sluymer, a car journalist, describing the close relations between car journalists and the car industry and readily admitting not being entirely above taking what's been given and not printing negative information as a favor.
I expect stuff like that to be fairly common in any place where the line between advertisement and "journalism" is thin. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Lack of hard proof will keep them away.

We have no evidence to support that claim. Games journalism is derided for running with unconfirmed crap all the time--often not even bothering to describe it as rumour or report. In fact, there seems to be little consequence to being wrong.

It's the difference between pissing down on somebody else and pissing in the wind.
Everybody (with maybe a rare few exceptions) receives from the publishers. For something that close to home you would want to make sure it cannot get back to you. Nobody would be happy if every journalist started pointing fingers at everyone. They would all look bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

The dirt in other fields is also there to be found, if you're willing to look for it.

And it's dealt with. None of this conspiracy theory talk which has dominated the gaming world for weeks now.

It's the difference between pissing down on somebody else and pissing in the wind.
Everybody (with maybe a rare few exceptions) receives from the publishers. For something that close to home you would want to make sure it cannot get back to you. Nobody would be happy if every journalist started pointing fingers at everyone. They would all look bad.

You're still yet to provide any evidence that this would be at issue. Just empty speculation at odds with the way gaming has worked.

Even the current "scandal" requires on an illuminati-style organisation with no proof such a thing actually exists. You might as well tell me that this wouldn't happen because the Lizard People say so.

 

[veloper]

The dirt in other fields is also there to be found, if you're willing to look for it.

And it's dealt with. None of this conspiracy theory talk which has dominated the gaming world for weeks now.

It's the difference between pissing down on somebody else and pissing in the wind.
Everybody (with maybe a rare few exceptions) receives from the publishers. For something that close to home you would want to make sure it cannot get back to you. Nobody would be happy if every journalist started pointing fingers at everyone. They would all look bad.

You're still yet to provide any evidence that this would be at issue. Just empty speculation at odds with the way gaming has worked.

Even the current "scandal" requires on an illuminati-style organisation with no proof such a thing actually exists. You might as well tell me that this wouldn't happen because the Lizard People say so.

It took you 13 days to come up with such a reply? That's funny.

No, this doesn't require any form of organization, just a healthy self-interest in the people involved.

You won't always get hard proof before you need to make a choice, so you'll simply need to go on less. In my experience it's safe to assume that people will try to act in their own self interest.

 

[Guerilla]

Zero, I've gotten used to getting by without them. Forums and maybe a couple of youtubers is all that you need lately, most of these self-righteous "journalists" are obsolete.

 

[Something Amyss]

It took you 13 days to come up with such a reply? That's funny.

It took 13 days for my inbox to calm down enough for this to show back up in the top page. But given all you're doing is offering a conspiracy theory, it wasn't high on my list. And now I feel like I was wasting my time.

Which, to be fair, I probably always was.

 

[veloper]

It took you 13 days to come up with such a reply? That's funny.

It took 13 days for my inbox to calm down enough for this to show back up in the top page. But given all you're doing is offering a conspiracy theory, it wasn't high on my list. And now I feel like I was wasting my time.

You can't read. I never said it was a conspiracy. On the contrary, I demonstrated how the natural interests of the game journos already lie with the industry and not with the consumers. No shady dealings necessary.

Which, to be fair, I probably always was.

At least you got that half-right. I still had a good time!

 

[Something Amyss]

You can't read. I never said it was a conspiracy.

Ironic, since I never said you you said it was a conspiracy. I said you were providing a conspiracy theory. Which is different, since one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists is that they don't think they're conspiracy theorists and might not even believe they're promoting a conspiracy theory.

However, you're assembling disparate information to establish a narrative largely not in keeping with the facts and dismissing anything to the contrary, with consequences so far reaching they would virtually require conspiracy to keep in check.

And I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but it is fantasy. Utter fantasy.

 

[veloper]

You can't read. I never said it was a conspiracy.

Ironic, since I never said you you said it was a conspiracy. I said you were providing a conspiracy theory.

I'm not providing a conspiracy theory either.

Which is different, since one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists is that they don't think they're conspiracy theorists and might not even believe they're promoting a conspiracy theory.

Nope, a conspiracy theorist will say there is a conspiracy. That's what they do.

However, you're assembling disparate information to establish a narrative largely not in keeping with the facts and dismissing anything to the contrary, with consequences so far reaching they would virtually require conspiracy to keep in check.

The facts are that most of the ad revenue is coming from game publishers, the review copies come from the publishers and trips by game journalists to events and press coverages have been paid for by publishers.
You haven't even tried to deny any of this and you've avoided all the relevant facts and arguments so far.