For those that don't know, Jim Sterling is a video game... Personality? Who occasionally reviews games, does a "Quick look" style show for Early Access games, dances with large pink dildos, makes videos commentating on events within the games industry, and hosts a podcast.
He does this independently of a network, however, used to be a content provider for The Escapist.
However, as of today, Square Enix's new game, Final Fantasy Type-O has released review copies for western publications and Jim Sterling finds he has not received a copy.
Now, I'll start by addressing an obvious elephant in the room with this. This clearly has nothing to do with any ideological basis. GamerGate has no relevance to this, I highly doubt any Japanese developers are really even aware of the situation, as such it serves no purpose to discuss, however, there are actions which Jim has committed which may have led to this.
As such, I propose the following reasons for why Jim may not have received a review. Ordered from most likely to least.
Jim Sterling is an individual and not working with any other network. Japanese developers typically don't send review copies to individuals.
Now, this one is definitely the most likely reason for the lack of a copy. Japan still puts a lot of value in publications and is not typically in the habit of it. (Especially not developers like Square Enix.)
It appears that there's a belief that individuals are not "Proper" reviewers, and certainly Jim himself lacks any journalistic qualifications otherwise. Thus, his opinion, whilst more popular, is technically not any of more value than any other "Personality" and as such, one could draw that it is less valuable than a reviewer working for an establishment such as IGN or Famitsu.
I think this is true to an extent. Famitsu for example has a panel of reviews who decide the final score, so as to not have the game be solely reflected by a single reviewer. And the level of writing at "Professional" publications is usually a fair degree higher than you'd find in a "Let's play" video or anything like that.
Essentially, it occurs that it's rather difficult to define what makes a "Professional" reviewer. Popularity seems a poor qualification as I and many others likely wouldn't consider Pewdiepie to be a "Professional" reviewer, likewise training seems a questionable choice as well as the majority of game reviewers lack any education in journalism.
So, perhaps reputation? Well, the problem with reputation is that it brings us on to our next point.
Jim Sterling Lied about playing Final Fantasy XIII, and gave it a bad review too!
Now, obviously, giving a game a bad review would be terrible grounds to disqualify any person from reviewing future games. Especially games like FFXIII. However, the fact of the matter is, Jim outright lied with his playtime for the game, a lie revealed by his PSN achievements, which upon discovery he made private.
Now, that's obviously poor form, and if I were a publisher like Square Enix, it'd certainly count against a reviewer when considering who to send copies to. The fact he then gave the game a 4/10 after having not completed it is really not the action of a person I'd deem particularly trustworthy to give an honest account of a game.
But, it's important to note, this was four years ago, a lot of things have changed in four years, I can't speak for Jim, but, I like to imagine he's improved from this mistake. As such, I don't personally believe this to be a good reason to not send a review copy, given the time has has elapsed since then. I think Jim could go further to make good on this, such as issuing an apology, however, the event happened some time ago.
Ultimately, It's a tricky situation. I'm not sure if I would deem Jim worthy of a review copy. As an independent, I think you have to accept that separating yourself from publications will mean that certain publishers will no longer view you as a reputable source and no longer send review copies of games. I don't particularly think that anyone is "owed" a review copy either, just because you make reviews does not mean you therefore are entitled to free games and at a time earlier than everyone else. There's nothing stopping Jim from reviewing the game when it hits the shelves like everyone else.
Given his tendency to attack developers and publishers for such things however, I get a feeling it may very well affect how he reviews the game.
He does this independently of a network, however, used to be a content provider for The Escapist.
However, as of today, Square Enix's new game, Final Fantasy Type-O has released review copies for western publications and Jim Sterling finds he has not received a copy.
Now, I'll start by addressing an obvious elephant in the room with this. This clearly has nothing to do with any ideological basis. GamerGate has no relevance to this, I highly doubt any Japanese developers are really even aware of the situation, as such it serves no purpose to discuss, however, there are actions which Jim has committed which may have led to this.
As such, I propose the following reasons for why Jim may not have received a review. Ordered from most likely to least.
Jim Sterling is an individual and not working with any other network. Japanese developers typically don't send review copies to individuals.
Now, this one is definitely the most likely reason for the lack of a copy. Japan still puts a lot of value in publications and is not typically in the habit of it. (Especially not developers like Square Enix.)
It appears that there's a belief that individuals are not "Proper" reviewers, and certainly Jim himself lacks any journalistic qualifications otherwise. Thus, his opinion, whilst more popular, is technically not any of more value than any other "Personality" and as such, one could draw that it is less valuable than a reviewer working for an establishment such as IGN or Famitsu.
I think this is true to an extent. Famitsu for example has a panel of reviews who decide the final score, so as to not have the game be solely reflected by a single reviewer. And the level of writing at "Professional" publications is usually a fair degree higher than you'd find in a "Let's play" video or anything like that.
Essentially, it occurs that it's rather difficult to define what makes a "Professional" reviewer. Popularity seems a poor qualification as I and many others likely wouldn't consider Pewdiepie to be a "Professional" reviewer, likewise training seems a questionable choice as well as the majority of game reviewers lack any education in journalism.
So, perhaps reputation? Well, the problem with reputation is that it brings us on to our next point.
Jim Sterling Lied about playing Final Fantasy XIII, and gave it a bad review too!
Now, obviously, giving a game a bad review would be terrible grounds to disqualify any person from reviewing future games. Especially games like FFXIII. However, the fact of the matter is, Jim outright lied with his playtime for the game, a lie revealed by his PSN achievements, which upon discovery he made private.
Now, that's obviously poor form, and if I were a publisher like Square Enix, it'd certainly count against a reviewer when considering who to send copies to. The fact he then gave the game a 4/10 after having not completed it is really not the action of a person I'd deem particularly trustworthy to give an honest account of a game.
But, it's important to note, this was four years ago, a lot of things have changed in four years, I can't speak for Jim, but, I like to imagine he's improved from this mistake. As such, I don't personally believe this to be a good reason to not send a review copy, given the time has has elapsed since then. I think Jim could go further to make good on this, such as issuing an apology, however, the event happened some time ago.
Ultimately, It's a tricky situation. I'm not sure if I would deem Jim worthy of a review copy. As an independent, I think you have to accept that separating yourself from publications will mean that certain publishers will no longer view you as a reputable source and no longer send review copies of games. I don't particularly think that anyone is "owed" a review copy either, just because you make reviews does not mean you therefore are entitled to free games and at a time earlier than everyone else. There's nothing stopping Jim from reviewing the game when it hits the shelves like everyone else.
Given his tendency to attack developers and publishers for such things however, I get a feeling it may very well affect how he reviews the game.
