Jim Sterling and the Mystery of the Missing Review Copy

[NPC009]

I think free review copies provided by the publishers is one of the problems with games journalism these days. The only other critics I can think of who get special treatment like that are film critics. It's ridiculous, though. Food critics always pay for their meals, for example.

To be fair, it's usually the publication that picks up a food critic's bill. Many game critics (or the publications they work for) wouldn't be able to afford their own review copies. For me and many of my collegues it would nearly halve our income if we had to pay for every game we review. The people mostly doing reviews of smaller games would be hit especially hard if we're talking magazines, because there you get paid by the page. New Battlefield get four pages, the 40 hour JRPG gets maybe one.

Also, if it weren't for those review copies, smaller games might slip under the reader. I've mentioned NISA before. While their games are often quite quirky, they do publish good titles that would appeal to a wider audience. It's easy to overlook them, though. The download code popping up into your inbox is a great reminder. Well, I guess a simple press release would do, but then someone has to go out to buy the game and that might make it sink to the bottom of the priority list, because maybe the title is only available digitally (gifting games can be a hassle) or it's not in stock at a local retailer. For the sake of diversity, right now, review copies are a good thing.

Why this kind of special treatment for film and video game critics? It makes no sense. In an interest to be as impartial as possible, it makes no sense to get free review copies. Not to mention that publishers effectively try to gag big outlets with the threat of not providing review copies and review embargos that sometimes extend past the games release date.

I assume it's because games and movies become available to an extremely large audience within a day of release, and consumers want to know if it's worth their money. It's different from a restaurant that fills, I don't know, a several hundreds seats a day and has customers from within a 50 mile radius? (I don't know much about restaurants.)

Also, if you think reviewers don't know what the price of a new triple A game or a movie ticket feels like, you're dead wrong. Sure, sometimes you get lucky and get to review the game you wanted to buy anyway, but it's not uncommon for a publication to have over a dozen reviewers. So, if you want a certain game, you're probably going to have to buy it yourself.

Sure, embargos are a *****, especially for magazines, but it's not as if publications don't work around it. I've seen some pretty big middle fingers go up. For instance, an old editor-in-chief once found out the reviewer had forgotten to notify him that there was an embargo in place when handing in the review. This was a problem, because they were a few hours before the magazine's deadline and saving the review for next issue would be a disaster. So he chopped of the score, called it a 'thorough hands-on preview', and published it anyway. Or you know, in case of a late embargo, simply claim the review was written by a writer who happened to recieve his pre-order early.

The whole system should be abolished. And the easiest way towards that would be for those journalists to refuse to take them. But no, instead Jim, the "not-journalist" (anymore) threatens the developer right back by saying that the game is now lower on his priority list. Class act, as usual, Mr. Sterling.

So, let's say you abolish the system. You know what would happen? First, many publication would have a massive financial problem on their hands. Their budget for review copies would increase tenfold if not more if they want to keep offering the same amount of content. Sure, they could demand reviewers buy their own copies, but like I said, most of them don't get paid much. They'd also really screw over the writers that focus more on niche titles instead of triple A stuff. Because now they'd have to consider: will I buy and review the newest Call of Duty and earn a paycheck that looks like something one might call a decent? Or should I review this JRPG that looks kind of cool and eat instant noodles for the rest of the month?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Not to mention, if you have to wait until you can buy a game, your review isn't going to be available until significantly after launch.

IE: The time period where most of the copies of a game are sold. Cynical me thinks there's plenty of publishers who'd be more than happy for certain games to not have launch day reviews. AC: Unity, anyone?

 

[NPC009]

True, big publishers sometimes have 'distribution problems' or some other reason send out review copies late. But they can't stop the inevitable and there's no way in hell I'm going to feel sorry for them.

Some companies are really good about it, though. It's not uncommon for Namco Bandai to mail download codes/review copies several weeks before release. That's awesome. It means I'll be able to complete something like a Tales game without racing through it at break neck speeds or giving up things like sleeping or proper hygiene. I case of Tales of Xillia I was near the end of my second playthrough when I handed in my review, a day before launch. They do have launch day embargoes sometimes (I think they were particularly worried about Tales of Hearts R), but since these are also used to make most reviews go up right when the game is available in stores (essentially concentrating media attention around the time the game needs it most), I can't can't be too hard on them.

 

[Fappy]

True, big publishers sometimes have 'distribution problems' or some other reason send out review copies late. But they can't stop the inevitable and there's no way in hell I'm going to feel sorry for them.

Some companies are really good about it, though. It's not uncommon for Namco Bandai to mail download codes/review copies several weeks before release. That's awesome. It means I'll be able to complete something like a Tales game without racing through it at break neck speeds or giving up things like sleeping or proper hygiene. I case of Tales of Xillia I was near the end of my second playthrough when I handed in my review, a day before launch. They do have launch day embargoes sometimes (I think they were particularly worried about Tales of Hearts R), but since these are also used to make most reviews go up right when the game is available in stores (essentially concentrating media attention around the time the game needs it most), I can't can't be too hard on them.

The only experience I have with this sort of thing was when I wrote a review for the Skyrim Dragonborn DLC and posted it on release day. I got invited to participate in the closed beta and had to sign an NDA. I'd already completed it twice before release day, and because I got my review out as soon as I was allowed to it actually got a lot of traffic. I was pleased XD

Since I haven't been paid to do this since college my other reviews always came out days to weeks after launch. No review copies for the amateurs!

 

[Xyebane]

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.

Uh, no. When did Jim ever say he finished the game completely? Who actually expects a reviewer to finish a game like FFXIII in time for reviews? Why does no one care when reviewers give games great reviews after only playing the first few hours?

Stop being psychotic. You are completely distorting the truth.

And why do you care so much that someone on the interwebs doesn't like a game you clearly do?

 

[elvor0]

2) Jim does infact work for a network, he was picked up by Polaris, aka the company owned by Disney now, almost instantly after switching to full time youtuber which is why, as Totalbiscuit said when developers try to abuse the DMCA against Jim; Good luck developers trying to take this to court, the House of Mouse really won't hesitate to rip you a new one. [Paraphrased so not a direct quote, it can be found on Totalbiscuit's news regarding the DMCA claims against Jim for the Slaughtering Grounds]

You almost make it sound as if the company named Disney stands up for fair use and the carefully measured application of copyright law. Which of course couldn't be further from the truth, as Mickey himself would attest to. If you hitch your wagon to Disney, one of greatest forces behind the bastardization of copyright, you've got absolutely no place lecturing anyone on frivolous copyright claims and how the whole system is just so fucked up.

On topic, this feels like more of a publicity stunt than anything by Sterling. The outrage needle doesn't budge for gaming personalities who consistently wave away ethical violations by their friends and then make a big stink about something this trivial. It's just a little too self-serving, Jimmy.

He's not saying that Disney aren't guilty of frivilous lawsuits, he's saying that noone would want to go up against them in court because Disney Lawyers.

 

[Davroth]

Not to mention, if you have to wait until you can buy a game, your review isn't going to be available until significantly after launch.

IE: The time period where most of the copies of a game are sold. Cynical me thinks there's plenty of publishers who'd be more than happy for certain games to not have launch day reviews. AC: Unity, anyone?

Mhm, and what difference does that make? People by terrible, buggy, half-baked games all the time even if the information is out there, not to mention that there were a surprising amount of positive AC Unity reviews at launch. So what exactly is your point?

I think free review copies provided by the publishers is one of the problems with games journalism these days. The only other critics I can think of who get special treatment like that are film critics. It's ridiculous, though. Food critics always pay for their meals, for example.

To be fair, it's usually the publication that picks up a food critic's bill. Many game critics (or the publications they work for) wouldn't be able to afford their own review copies. For me and many of my collegues it would nearly halve our income if we had to pay for every game we review. The people mostly doing reviews of smaller games would be hit especially hard if we're talking magazines, because there you get paid by the page. New Battlefield get four pages, the 40 hour JRPG gets maybe one.

Also, if it weren't for those review copies, smaller games might slip under the reader. I've mentioned NISA before. While their games are often quite quirky, they do publish good titles that would appeal to a wider audience. It's easy to overlook them, though. The download code popping up into your inbox is a great reminder. Well, I guess a simple press release would do, but then someone has to go out to buy the game and that might make it sink to the bottom of the priority list, because maybe the title is only available digitally (gifting games can be a hassle) or it's not in stock at a local retailer. For the sake of diversity, right now, review copies are a good thing.

Why this kind of special treatment for film and video game critics? It makes no sense. In an interest to be as impartial as possible, it makes no sense to get free review copies. Not to mention that publishers effectively try to gag big outlets with the threat of not providing review copies and review embargos that sometimes extend past the games release date.

I assume it's because games and movies become available to an extremely large audience within a day of release, and consumers want to know if it's worth their money. It's different from a restaurant that fills, I don't know, a several hundreds seats a day and has customers from within a 50 mile radius? (I don't know much about restaurants.)

Also, if you think reviewers don't know what the price of a new triple A game or a movie ticket feels like, you're dead wrong. Sure, sometimes you get lucky and get to review the game you wanted to buy anyway, but it's not uncommon for a publication to have over a dozen reviewers. So, if you want a certain game, you're probably going to have to buy it yourself.

Sure, embargos are a *****, especially for magazines, but it's not as if publications don't work around it. I've seen some pretty big middle fingers go up. For instance, an old editor-in-chief once found out the reviewer had forgotten to notify him that there was an embargo in place when handing in the review. This was a problem, because they were a few hours before the magazine's deadline and saving the review for next issue would be a disaster. So he chopped of the score, called it a 'thorough hands-on preview', and published it anyway. Or you know, in case of a late embargo, simply claim the review was written by a writer who happened to recieve his pre-order early.

The whole system should be abolished. And the easiest way towards that would be for those journalists to refuse to take them. But no, instead Jim, the "not-journalist" (anymore) threatens the developer right back by saying that the game is now lower on his priority list. Class act, as usual, Mr. Sterling.

So, let's say you abolish the system. You know what would happen? First, many publication would have a massive financial problem on their hands. Their budget for review copies would increase tenfold if not more if they want to keep offering the same amount of content. Sure, they could demand reviewers buy their own copies, but like I said, most of them don't get paid much. They'd also really screw over the writers that focus more on niche titles instead of triple A stuff. Because now they'd have to consider: will I buy and review the newest Call of Duty and earn a paycheck that looks like something one might call a decent? Or should I review this JRPG that looks kind of cool and eat instant noodles for the rest of the month?

How come that most of those excuses you make up here amount to things that are a journalist's job?

Publications pay for review material. That's their job.

Journalist needs to research and remember upcoming release dates. That's their job, they shouldn't need a review code in their inbox as a reminder.

Nondisclosure agreement, the way publishers use them these days, are abominable. And it would be a journalist's job not to take them, because it takes away from their ability to be impartial. A system like this would only be acceptable if there's some kind of universal rule in place about it, which there isn't. We hear about quite frequently, and the dark number is probably even higher.

The journalists, first and foremost, need to be paid decently. Poor pay (which I might add is in the hands of the publication they work for) can't be the excuse for this kind of farce. If publications wouldn't treat their writers as dime a dozen, replaceable, cheap fodder, we wouldn't have this discussion, since this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

 

[Davroth]

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.

Uh, no. When did Jim ever say he finished the game completely? Who actually expects a reviewer to finish a game like FFXIII in time for reviews? Why does no one care when reviewers give games great reviews after only playing the first few hours?

Stop being psychotic. You are completely distorting the truth.

And why do you care so much that someone on the interwebs doesn't like a game you clearly do?

He totally said on twitter that he completed the game. Get with the program.

 

[ffronw]

While it's true that XIII was garbage until the end, the idea of half-assing a review leads to situations like the Mass Effect 3 debacle (reviewers not playing it to the end, yet throwing out 9s and 10s really made them look like a can of piss). Yeah, kinda wanna avoid that. Also if a bad game gets worse you can give it an even lower score! Everybody wins.

*snip*

The problem with the ME3 reviews wasn't that some people gave it a 9 or a 10 and didn't play the ending. Heck, the reviews really weren't even the problem. While I know that a lot of people (me included) thought the ending was a complete hack job, it's OK if some reviewers liked it.

Where the ME3 ending mess went off the rails was after the reviews, when gamers started to complain about it. There was far too much dismissiveness and disregard among certain parts of the gaming press, and Bioware's reaction was even worse.

No matter how you felt about the ending, you had to admit that the reaction to the user backlash was allllll messed up.

 

[NPC009]

How come that most of those excuses you make up here amount to things that are a journalist's job?

Publications pay for review material. That's their job.[/quote]

It is, but review copies are not as uncommon as you think. Fashion magazines are send clothes, book critics recieve books from publishers. Movie tickets, dvd box sets, hair care products, chocolate, dildos - there are 'review copies' of just about anything. And yes, many magazines, websites, tv shows and so on accept them. The only way the game industry is different is in how much control publishers are trying to keep over said review copies.

Of course it would be great if it were different, but what can you do if there is no money to buy review-copies? It's something many publications, especially the smaller ones, can't afford. Not every journalist is has a patreon worth $10,000 a month.

Journalist needs to research and remember upcoming release dates. That's their job, they shouldn't need a review code in their inbox as a reminder.

Do you have clue how many games come out each month? Hundreds. How often it happens a smaller games is suddenly released without warning? Review schedules, even the ones send out by publishers, aren't always reliable. No matter how hard you try, games will slip through the cracks.

Nondisclosure agreement, the way publishers use them these days, are abominable. And it would be a journalist's job not to take them, because it takes away from their ability to be impartial. A system like this would only be acceptable if there's some kind of universal rule in place about it, which there isn't. We hear about quite frequently, and the dark number is probably even higher.

Fine, then we won't sign any NDAs. Fewer reviews available on launch then (because we won't be getting any early copies). I'm sure that's very helpful to consumers.

Look, we should be fighting shady practices like exclusive reviews and post-launch embargoes, but there are also agreements that don't really hurt anyone. Jim did an episode on this actually. I share his opinion, so I'll save myself some time and direct you here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNj-EhI_wVA

The journalists, first and foremost, need to be paid decently. Poor pay (which I might add is in the hands of the publication they work for) can't be the excuse for this kind of farce. If publications wouldn't treat their writers as dime a dozen, replaceable, cheap fodder, we wouldn't have this discussion, since this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Where is the money going to come from, exactly? I'm certain there are some dickish publications that screw over their employees all too eagerly, but a lot of smaller, quality sites and magazines simply don't have the mass appeal that brings in the big bucks. I've written for more than a few. I've seen more than a few die after years of scraping by.

In an ideal world we'd all be paid decently and if I could turn this into an ideal world with a snap of my fingers, I would. Sadly, reality is a pesky thing and more often than not you'll just have to live with compromise and make the most of it. In this case that means review copies obtained from publishers.

 

[Davroth]

How come that most of those excuses you make up here amount to things that are a journalist's job?

Publications pay for review material. That's their job.

It is, but review copies are not as uncommon as you think. Fashion magazines are send clothes, book critics recieve books from publishers. Movie tickets, dvd box sets, hair care products, chocolate, dildos - there are 'review copies' of just about anything. And yes, many magazines, websites, tv shows and so on accept them. The only way the game industry is different is in how much control publishers are trying to keep over said review copies.

Of course it would be great if it were different, but what can you do if there is no money to buy review-copies? It's something many publications, especially the smaller ones, can't afford. Not every journalist is has a patreon worth $10,000 a month.

Journalist needs to research and remember upcoming release dates. That's their job, they shouldn't need a review code in their inbox as a reminder.

Do you have clue how many games come out each month? Hundreds. How often it happens a smaller games is suddenly released without warning? Review schedules, even the ones send out by publishers, aren't always reliable. No matter how hard you try, games will slip through the cracks.

Nondisclosure agreement, the way publishers use them these days, are abominable. And it would be a journalist's job not to take them, because it takes away from their ability to be impartial. A system like this would only be acceptable if there's some kind of universal rule in place about it, which there isn't. We hear about quite frequently, and the dark number is probably even higher.

Fine, then we won't sign any NDAs. Fewer reviews available on launch then (because we won't be getting any early copies). I'm sure that's very helpful to consumers.

Look, we should be fighting shady practices like exclusive reviews and post-launch embargoes, but there are also agreements that don't really hurt anyone. Jim did an episode on this actually. I share his opinion, so I'll save myself some time and direct you here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNj-EhI_wVA

The journalists, first and foremost, need to be paid decently. Poor pay (which I might add is in the hands of the publication they work for) can't be the excuse for this kind of farce. If publications wouldn't treat their writers as dime a dozen, replaceable, cheap fodder, we wouldn't have this discussion, since this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Where is the money going to come from, exactly? I'm certain there are some dickish publications that screw over their employees all too eagerly, but a lot of smaller, quality sites and magazines simply don't have the mass appeal that brings in the big bucks. I've written for more than a few. I've seen more than a few die after years of scraping by.

In an ideal world we'd all be paid decently and if I could turn this into an ideal world with a snap of my fingers, I would. Sadly, reality is a pesky thing and more often than not you'll just have to live with compromise and make the most of it. In this case that means review copies obtained from publishers.[/quote]

Just because others do it doesn't make the practice any more acceptable, and so far, you haven't addressed my criticism at all, rather, I only hear and hear more excuses. And since you bring it up, maybe, just maybe, if you are blessed with a 10000 $ a month Patreon, you'd know better then to use what little weight you have to throw a company under the bus for not sending you, a Youtuber and selfproclaimed 'not-journalist' a review copy for journalists. But I know. That's what his fans love about him. All the axes he has to grind.

And game slip under the cracks all the time anyway, for the prettiest reasons. So what? This, too, is an excuse. And a lazy one at that because the situation is barely even better compared to your proposed alternative.

No reviews at launch would indeed be a large improvement. As it stands, due to the NDAs getting thrown around these days, the early reviews won't neccessarily inform a purchase decisions adequately, since they might be forced to onit the existance of bugs or specific parts of the game the publisher don't want them to talk about. So frankly, how would the abolishing of early review copies and NDAs make that situation any worse then it is already?

If journalists don't want to do their job, then frankly they shouldn't be journalists to begin with. It's a broken system, and it should either be fixed, or it will be phased out. We are on the best way for the second option though.

 

[NPC009]

Just because others do it doesn't make the practice any more acceptable, and so far, you haven't addressed my criticism at all, rather, I only hear and hear more excuses.

Those excuses happen to be reality. It's not something that's easily changed. But if you have a magic wand that can, please lend it to me so I can solve world hunger, solve the energy crisis, refreeze the ice caps and do some other important stuff.

Anyway, have you ever considered that review copies may actually be found acceptable in most industries? The reviewer is getting a copy either way, one he should have to pay for since it's something he needs to have in order to be able to do his job. To the reviewer, having his employee pay for it or recieving it from a publisher doesn't change what he's reviewing. It's the same thing. Only difference is that it might have 'not for resale' printed on it (still the case with books, early review copies of games used to be packaged differently, often small jewel cases with 'not for resale' printed on the disc and/or cover). What is generally seen as a dick move on reviewers part is selling an advanced review copy before launch (and allow it to fall in the hands of pirates and/or dudes who'll happily spoil everything for everyone), and that's not just by publishers but also by consumers. (Part of the fun of a midnight Harry Potter release was that the contents of the book were new to everyone, right? Let's protect that excitement )

Also, while you hear a lot of complaints about publishers not sending out review copies in time, it's actually more common for them to nearly spam the things. It's especially easy now that digital distribution is a thing. Even smaller publications recieve more material than they could possible cover. So it's not as if publishers can buy a page by sending a review copy. It's more like a plea to be covered. If their stuff doesn't look interesting enough, too bad, the game will end up on the stack of unused review copies. (As for what happens next depends on the magazine/website. Some like giving the review copy away to a lucky reader once the game if offically out, though that works best with physical copies, which are becoming increasingly rare. Others give them to writers and other employees as a pat on the head. Othertimes the codes are left to rot in an inbox.)

And since you bring it up, maybe, just maybe, if you are blessed with a 10000 $ a month Patreon, you'd know better then to use what little weight you have to throw a company under the bus for not sending you, a Youtuber and selfproclaimed 'not-journalist' a review copy for journalists. But I know. That's what his fans love about him. All the axes he has to grind.

In most of my posts I was not talking about Jim's case. His case is an odd one. There are good reasons for him to want a review copy, though. Review copies, the ones send out by sensible companies anyway, arrive weeks before the game is actually out. This mean the critic can play it thoroughly and have the review up at launch or a few days later at worst. Being a slowpoke can cost you a lot of hits, so he'd want to try and avoid being one.

Also, I'm pretty sure he calls himself a not-journalist because he's more of a critic, a very consumer-oriented one at that. Many members of the gamepress happen to be a bit of both, but 'journalist' and 'critic' are not exactly the same profession.

And game slip under the cracks all the time anyway, for the prettiest reasons. So what? This, too, is an excuse. And a lazy one at that because the situation is barely even better compared to your proposed alternative.

So you don't like the sites/magazines you read to cover a wide variety of games? Sadly, fact is that many companies are terrible at promoting their own products (games suddenly appear in the eShop/PS Store/Steam all the time, and by the time we find out what we're missing, it might be too late). Sometimes that review copy, even if it's just a download code, is a pretty good reminder of what we could (and should) be sharing with our readers. Besides, even if review copies weren't a thing, we'd still be getting press releases. So, yeah.

Also, may I ask what kind of job you do? Is it alright if I come over and yell at you for making the slightest mistake? Just little slip-ups that are nothing if not human? Because that's kinda what you're doing now, expecting things that are surprisingly difficult to accomplish perfectly again and again.

No reviews at launch would indeed be a large improvement. As it stands, due to the NDAs getting thrown around these days, the early reviews won't neccessarily inform a purchase decisions adequately, since they might be forced to onit the existance of bugs or specific parts of the game the publisher don't want them to talk about. So frankly, how would the abolishing of early review copies and NDAs make that situation any worse then it is already?

Why would it be an improvement? The people who are interested in buying the game would have to wait longer for informed opinions. If the publishers sends out copies on time (like 2-3 weeks before launch) and there's an embargo in place till launch, atleast websites won't try to compete with eachother to get reviews out as soon as possible. This means that reviewers can play through the game at a normal pace and consumers will be able to read reviews as soon as the game is out. As a side-effect (critics shouldn't be too concerned with this), the game gets a full dose of media attention right when it needs it.

Also, NDAs are little more than 'please STFU up until xx/xx, ktnxbye'. What you are worried about (or should be, atleast) is something else: controlled environment reviews. Like when they put a bunch of reviewers in a nice hotel and let them play Battlefield on a awesome private server. While these events are often accompanied by NDAs, NDAs are not exclusive to these events.

If journalists don't want to do their job, then frankly they shouldn't be journalists to begin with. It's a broken system, and it should either be fixed, or it will be phased out. We are on the best way for the second option though.

So nice of you to wish people would lose their jobs.

 

[ffronw]

Just because others do it doesn't make the practice any more acceptable, and so far, you haven't addressed my criticism at all, rather, I only hear and hear more excuses. And since you bring it up, maybe, just maybe, if you are blessed with a 10000 $ a month Patreon, you'd know better then to use what little weight you have to throw a company under the bus for not sending you, a Youtuber and self-proclaimed 'not-journalist' a review copy for journalists. But I know. That's what his fans love about him. All the axes he has to grind.

And game slip under the cracks all the time anyway, for the prettiest reasons. So what? This, too, is an excuse. And a lazy one at that because the situation is barely even better compared to your proposed alternative.

The problem isn't what you think it is. Here's the thing:

1. Gamers want reviews
2. Buying review copies gets expensive really fast (8 games a month @ $60 per is over $5,700)
3. Gamers do NOT want to pay for reviews.

There's a weird disconnect between many gamers and the end product they consume on websites. They're happy to complain about reviewers getting "paid off" (I'll address that below), but they're rarely willing to do the one thing that might combat that - open up their wallets a bit.

Newspapers, magazines, and websites all pay their bills the same way - through advertising. When circulation drops, it makes it harder to get ads (see every newspaper in existence right now). There's also a finite amount of money that's used for all sorts of things: server costs, electric bills in the office, salaries, etc. Oh, and don't forget travel costs for things like E3 and PAX, which aren't free or cheap. Most of the websites you visit aren't making mad money. They're just trying to get by.

Let's say you don't accept any review copies. At that point, you will likely need to eliminate reviews, either partially or entirely, and focus on other content. You see, reviews that are posted more than 48 hours after launch will typically do very poorly traffic-wise. Why? Because everyone who's interested in that title has already either bought it or played it by that point, and your review is irrelevant. It isn't pretty, but that's often how things work.

That diminished return means that not only are you spending more money (buying review copies), but you're bringing in less pageviews with more investment, and that means less ad revenue. You might even end up losing money on the review, by the time you factor in the cost of paying the reviewer's salary. Things that lose money tend to get cut fairly quickly.

As far as how sites, make money, I think that things like the PubClub subscriptions here on The Escapist are a positive step forward, assuming people embrace them. If you think publisher money and ads have too much influence on the press, then there must be a better way to fund it, right? Would you pay a yearly subscription to a site you liked? That's what you need to do if you want to lead the way to an ad-free future.

As to reviewers getting paid by publishers for reviews, let's be honest here. No publisher is running around with a sack of cash and handing it out. It just doesn't happen. I've been in the business for over a decade, working on sites with lots of reach, and it does not happen. The thing that you need to remember is that if it did, the fame and renown you could garner from being the guy who exposed that would far, far outweigh any meager compensation that a publisher might offer you.

No reviews at launch would indeed be a large improvement. As it stands, due to the NDAs getting thrown around these days, the early reviews won't neccessarily inform a purchase decisions adequately, since they might be forced to onit the existance of bugs or specific parts of the game the publisher don't want them to talk about. So frankly, how would the abolishing of early review copies and NDAs make that situation any worse then it is already?

If journalists don't want to do their job, then frankly they shouldn't be journalists to begin with. It's a broken system, and it should either be fixed, or it will be phased out. We are on the best way for the second option though.

You're conflating NDAs and embargoes here. NDA documents are typically part of alpha/beta access, and you're right - they do preclude mentioning game bugs or unfinished features in many cases. That's largely because those games aren't done yet, and bugs in a beta build aren't necessarily going to be part of a final release. That doesn't mean that we don't note those things for future consideration.

Embargoes are the things that determine when reviews get released. An embargo will typically say something like "You cannot publish any review of the game content covered under this embargo until DATE/TIME." Depending on the game and the company issuing the embargo, it could be launch, or the week before launch. However, the only restrictions on talking about game content I have ever seen in embargoes is requests (not demands) to avoid story spoilers or certain plot twists in the game. You can refuse to honor the embargo, but it means you don't get the review code / copy early, and that means your review is less valuable (See above).

The AC Unity embargo (I think it was 12 hours after launch) was an outlier, and almost every outlet I know of said they would never agree to a post-launch embargo again, which I applaud.

____

Also, as a side note to something I saw earlier in the thread: You can't tell if a reviewer finished a game by looking at their Steam profile or achievements. In many cases, you get an early code with access to a specific branch that lets you play the game on Steam. That playtime does not appear on your profile, and you typically do not get achievements (although that can vary). Case in point: My Borderlands: the Pre-Sequel info on Steam shows 8 hours played, but I am several levels into the second playthrough. Do you really think that's accurate?

 

[Battenberg]

I love the comments saying Jim should just buy a copy because he's apparently super wealthy from Patreon now. Putting aside how much of the 10k a month he actually gets after Patreon's cut and various costs he still has less income than, for example, the Escapist. If gaming sites weren't getting review copies people would surely not just be ignoring the issue because "they can afford to just buy it".

Also the official Squenix line (according to Jim's twitter) is that they 'ran out of review copies'. Make of that what you will but to me that sounds more like they have a problem with Jim as opposed to having just overlooked/ forgotten about him.

 

[Naqel]

Jim Sterling is an individual and not working with any other network. Japanese developers typically don't send review copies to individuals.

This plus the fact that Jim is(at least to me) and industry analyst first, and reviewer(in the traditional 'start-to-finish') sometime far later down the list is valid enough reasons not to send him a review copy, and good enough grounds to deny him one if requested.

The kind of publicity Jim can offer is unlikely to be a kind of publicity a developer would consider valuable, regardless of his opinion of the game.

 

[Redryhno]

I love the comments saying Jim should just buy a copy because he's apparently super wealthy from Patreon now. Putting aside how much of the 10k a month he actually gets after Patreon's cut and various costs he still has less income than, for example, the Escapist. If gaming sites weren't getting review copies people would surely not just be ignoring the issue because "they can afford to just buy it".

Also the official Squenix line (according to Jim's twitter) is that they 'ran out of review copies'. Make of that what you will but to me that sounds more like they have a problem with Jim as opposed to having just overlooked/ forgotten about him.

Well, you could go with him no longer really being relevant enough to give a review copy to immediately on account of going full crowd-funded.(personally I'll believe this one) There's alot of downsides to going the route he did, this is just one of the first bumps he's probably gonna have until/if he gets reestablished without a platform like Dtoid or the Escapist holding him up.

There's that they have a problem with him, which I honestly won't fully fault them for considering the overall superficial complaints he's lodged against them recently(art overdesign being the main ranting point when the whole point of the FF series is over the top anime game the game and pretty much always has been) when he then praises other games for it such as the Warriors series, and the series Nier is an alternate timeline for(I forget the name right now).

Then there's just them actually running out of copies before getting to him. I mean, they could go on an alphabetical system and Sterling is sorta not at the top of the list in that case. Or even most to least subscribers and/or projected views. He doesn't even have 200k subs with an average of around 35k views for his videos the most I saw toppping around 70k, really tiny honestly considering how much of a "big boy" he's supposed to be, I think Genna Bain's got more subs, and she posts mainly pet videos and the rare TB getting uncomfortable playing dating sims with her vid they stream on Twitch first, as well as Snark Tank.

Bottom line is, there's alot of reasons he might not have gotten a review copy, Jim making as big of a deal out of it as he did is honestly a childish thing to do. I know he eventually just said this FF was gonna be lower on his list of priority reviews, but he could've just said that to begin with and Squeenix wouldn't have cared anymore than they do now. I mean, he could've just said that without throwing a twitter fit and people might not be making as big a deal out of this as they are.

Edit: Sorry Bucket, screwed up my posts here.

 

[Therumancer]

I love the comments saying Jim should just buy a copy because he's apparently super wealthy from Patreon now. Putting aside how much of the 10k a month he actually gets after Patreon's cut and various costs he still has less income than, for example, the Escapist. If gaming sites weren't getting review copies people would surely not just be ignoring the issue because "they can afford to just buy it".

Also the official Squenix line (according to Jim's twitter) is that they 'ran out of review copies'. Make of that what you will but to me that sounds more like they have a problem with Jim as opposed to having just overlooked/ forgotten about him.

I sort of flubbed this last time I tried to make this point. Get on Youtube and type in Jim Sterling (I'm not sure what The Escapist's reaction would be to me posting a link to material by someone they fired). You'll notice his "reviews" via Squirty Plays and the like average around 30k views with some lower, and his high point being "After Reset" which hit 80k views. Jimquisition is now usually pulling down under 200k views with the exception being when he dropped Peter Molyneux's name. His biggest hits tend to be material he produced while working for The Escapist. Going independent has greatly reduced his exposure and following.

In comparison when you look at say Totalbiscuit, he averages about 400k views but in some cases skyrockets to nearly a million (I haven't checked to see if he's broken that) his equivalent to reviews hits less than that than his general commentary, but he's still pulling down roughly twice the hits as Jim in general, and about 8 to 10 times his audience for reviews.

I hope Jim DOES succeed mind you, but looking at this from a practical perspective he's small potatoes compared to other "big" Youtube personalities for the moment. Sending him review copies benefits him through providing legitimacy at this state, and helping him pull in more hits, than it helps the companies by giving them exposure. What's more while their personalities are different it does seem his audience overlaps a lot with other Youtube personalities like the aforementioned Total Biscuit, so one has to ask how many unique views is Jim actually giving a product that he's given at this point. In general review copies are distributed to individuals and publications (electronic and print) that they feel can generate hype and get attention. When Jim worked for The Escapist he had a much larger audience, the patronage of a major site, and was eventually acting as reviews editor. Now that he's small potatoes comparatively speaking his antics and corporate bashing, as much as I've appreciated both, have problem come back to haunt him as well. Jim is quite good at what he does, but dare I say it his competition like Totalbiscuit tends to be a bit more classy, for example I have yet to see Totalbiscuit do a sex scene with a blow up doll with a game he doesn't like taped to the face, or go out of his way to insult massive numbers of people for disagreeing with a socio political position like Jim did over the whole "Gay Shepard" thing. Totalbiscuit might make such personal statements once in a while, but he doesn't take it to the same extent. It's sort of like what happened to Don Imus on the radio, eventually he pushed too far one too many times, got canned, and then was never able to get anything like the exposure or respect he once had when he was forced to move to Satellite Radio.

 

[irishda]

Jim Sterling verified that he didn't finish the game in the following interview:

I personally think that when reviewing a story-driven game, not completing the story and then proclaiming one's opinion as "Finalised" and not disclosing the fact you haven't finished the game is deceptive at the very least.

To then go on and hide your profile so it doesn't happen again, is also very questionable.

Regardless, this was 5 years ago. I don't care, and you probably shouldn't either.

But, I proposed it as a theory for why SE went with this decision. And an unlikely one at that.

Questionable why? Did you finish reading all of Twilight before you "finalized" your opinion on it, or did you only need a few pages before you realized it was shit? Hell, even forming an opinion on a story itself doesn't require the finishing of that story. Some stories just don't work from the start for people regardless of what the ending is.

Plus, come on, man, I don't even have to look at the megathread to KNOW this came from there and you wanted to see if it would stick with the bigger public.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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.

Is this just based on his lacking the achievement? Perhaps he just didn't sync them.

Yeah, there are quite a few achievements I haven't been credited as having earned over the years due to various reasons. Once or twice I've had games actively forget that I had earned an achievement, or some didn't trigger because I wasn't logged into an online service while playing.

Not that I intend that to be a comment on whether Jim finished the game or not; to be honest, I don't think he did need to finish Final Fantasy XIII to come to such a conclusion. I played it for twelve hours and couldn't stand to go any further (though much to my shame I currently have it installed on my PC anyway).

You've more intestinal fortitude than I did. I made it perhaps 3-4 hours (minus cutscene length) before I realized the handholding tutorial shit was never going to end and quit, vowed never to touch the game again and haven't since. Neither have I bothered with the sequels. I don't care if they're better or whatever, if the first game was shit I'm not going to give a rats ass about the second or 3rd installment.

As for the OP's claim? I've got tons of titles that I should have had achieves/trophies for but due to either not properly syncing (really PSN? You couldn't just upload that shit on the fly knowing I'm already online?) or playing offline (I had to redo my entire Red Dead Redemption 100% run on XBOX 360 because I did it all offlie and that hard drive had an accident... we won't discuss that). So I don't think Jim Sterling needed to lie about playing such a shitty game. What would he gain by doing so? Jesus Tapdancing Christ you people and your nutjob theories are enough to make me wonder what the hell you do with your time that you feel the need to disparage people's integrity with no actual proof other than a lack of PSN trophies.
Seriously, find something worthwhile to do, dig up some dirt on a politician who's fucking the public in the ass or taking bribes or something... but for fuck's sake... Do something worthwhile with your time, I can't stress enough just how much posts like these only serve to show how petty people are about this shit... Damn, yo....

 

[Mikeybb]

As one of the first wave of Patreon funded independant reviewer/entertainers, Jim is going to be charting fresh ground regarding all this.

I'm sure as much as he's finding out how to deal with the developers as an independent, they in turn are considering how to deal with him.
It's new to all of them, but It looks like it could be something they're all going to have to get used to in the coming years.

To an extent, this shows the advantage of forming a cooperative, group, or whatever gatherings of reviewers like polaris happen to be.
I'd imagine large developers would be more eager to deal with such groupings as then, after the legal work is done in a batch lot, the copies are distributed to multiple avenues of exposure rather than just one (however much coverage that individual may have).

This is all just me throwing guesses around though, it could work in a completely different fashion and it could be true that Square are reluctant to deal with an independent who has given a previous title a bit of a critical hit.
Not that I think it's a valid reason for a person to be denied a copy to review, but it is a distinct possibility.

If developers take a stance of denying review copies in too many cases, they may find an erosion of first week sales.
I know I'd be reluctant to jump at that new copy if there was a reviewer I listened to regarding purchases who hadn't received a review copy.
That very fact usually raises a red flag against a game and makes me wary, on it's own.