reviewers getting paid to give good reviews

[NPC009]

Snip

Snip

So, for you two in particular.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

Because one story discounts ten years worth of personal experiences... But perhaps it does because I'm not American and don't work for American publications. From an outside perspective, part of American game journalism is pretty nuts. Because, yes, stuff like Mountain Dew and Doritos and employees not having their priorities straight makes it look like a caricature of itself. However, it's extremely important to remember there's more to gamejournalism than that, even if you're just looking at North-America. By focusing on sites like IGN, you're focusing on the Daily Mails of videogame journalism and thank god the Daily Mail is not the only paper around.


My personal experiences:
-Unless they're independent critics have very little contact with publishers. I can count the instances I had to talk to PR people on one hand. More if you count the people offering to get me another cup of tea during a review session, but I make better tea at home, so... yeah.

-Editors stick with their critics, even if that means a dip in ad income. One of my reviews caused a small game publisher to stop advertising and the editor-in-chief told me not to worry about it, because I did the right thing by writing an honest review.

-Swag? In case of goodie bags, I hope you like shirts and other useless junk. The shirts may not even fit properly, because they ran out of your size or only had XL to begin with. And if you're a woman, well, hope you need something new to sleep in, I guess. Stuff that was send to the office was used for sweepstakes to draw in readers. If we ever got something it was like a pat on the head. "Good job meeting that difficult deadline, here's a keychain of that series you like so much!"

-Free games? Free in the sense that we need them to do our job and don't have to pay for it ourselves. Nowadays it's all download codes, so we can't even sell off unwanted games to supplement our shitty income.

-Events are rare and there's a good chance you're going to have to pay for it yourself (good luck with that if you're earning barely enough to get by). I know colleagues that save up to go to events in Japan. They write about them as much as they can, but are extremely lucky if they break-even.

-Did I mention the pay is shit unless you're a big name and/or work somewhere as an editor-in-chief? Where I'm from, current page rates approach 50% of minimum wage. Less for websites.

-Most publishers are not in the habit of sending out LEs or CEs to websites/magazines. If they do send them, it's probably to give away in a sweepstake or something. One magazine I write for got three of thoese coveted Ni no Kuni CEs to share with readers. Meanwhile, I, the reviewer, got a standard edition. Even that was pretty generous now that I think about it, as that publisher usually sends out download codes.

-Reviews in hotels? Eh, probably not unless you're a big name reviewing the next big thing (or next Call of Duty). And seriously, it's not as fun as it sounds. Worse case they'll have a representative sitting next to you to guide you through the game. Jobs on site are usually more like: here's the game, have some crisps, see you later.

 

[asinann]

I don't see the sites as being paid for good reviews, but there is a definite conflict of interests when they are advertising the very games they are reviewing.

 

[Nazulu]

Didn't really think that through did you? People here will bounce on you like a trampoline if you don't give a decent amount of info.

I have no doubt it would have been one of the big publishers strategy's to pay reviewers, out of all the fucked up things I keep hearing it wouldn't surprised me in the least. Hell, for all we know, maybe IGN purposely hire reviewers with really low standards and some how make extra money that way. But you will need some strong evidence if this is to be discussed properly because otherwise there is no point.

 

[Sarge034]

-Swag? (et all)

So when a reviewer gets invited to on site preview events, which are a shit tactic to begin with, and given tablets because... reasons, then all is kosher? I'm not sure if it was a stupid PR move, or bribery, or what but you know what? It doesn't matter because to the people on the outside looking in, it looks shady. Now here's an interesting question for you to mull over. Are you important enough to be bribed? I'm not asking you to share any info, but think of it. Do you work for a big name reviewer? In the grand scheme of things, if they were going to do it, would your voice be worth the money and risk it would take to buy it? Perhaps you simply aren't a popular enough entity to be bought, perhaps it's not as rampant a problem as it seems, perhaps you are already bought and paid for. I honestly don't know but game reviewers (in general) have done nothing to alleviate my fears or suspicions. So as long as there is such a close relationship between the reviewer and the reviewed I will be suspicious. Just like doctors getting swag from drug companies.

 

[NPC009]

-Swag? (et all)

So when a reviewer gets invited to on site preview events, which are a shit tactic to begin with, and given tablets because... reasons, then all is kosher? I'm not sure if it was a stupid PR move, or bribery, or what but you know what? It doesn't matter because to the people on the outside looking in, it looks shady. Now here's an interesting question for you to mull over. Are you important enough to be bribed? I'm not asking you to share any info, but think of it. Do you work for a big name reviewer? In the grand scheme of things, if they were going to do it, would your voice be worth the money and risk it would take to buy it? Perhaps you simply aren't a popular enough entity to be bought, perhaps it's not as rampant a problem as it seems, perhaps you are already bought and paid for. I honestly don't know but game reviewers (in general) have done nothing to alleviate my fears or suspicions. So as long as there is such a close relationship between the reviewer and the reviewed I will be suspicious. Just like doctors getting swag from drug companies.

Do you have any idea how rare that is? Yes, it's stupid PR and fortunately it's not the norm.

You're right that I'm not popular enough to be 'bribed', but you know what? So is pretty much every of my collegues ever. Worst I've seen was hotel stays for review purposes. We're regular folks being underpaid to review games and we're more or less okay with that, because we love games. That's what's normal. And now it sounds like you think I'm at fault for being a regular critic/journalist/whatever...

The way people cling to big name faux pas reminds me of how other people read those rags about celebrities... It's fun to imagine the worst and gossip about it, isn't it?

 

[FelixLovestar]

-Swag? (et all)

So when a reviewer gets invited to on site preview events, which are a shit tactic to begin with, and given tablets because... reasons, then all is kosher? I'm not sure if it was a stupid PR move, or bribery, or what but you know what? It doesn't matter because to the people on the outside looking in, it looks shady. Now here's an interesting question for you to mull over. Are you important enough to be bribed? I'm not asking you to share any info, but think of it. Do you work for a big name reviewer? In the grand scheme of things, if they were going to do it, would your voice be worth the money and risk it would take to buy it? Perhaps you simply aren't a popular enough entity to be bought, perhaps it's not as rampant a problem as it seems, perhaps you are already bought and paid for. I honestly don't know but game reviewers (in general) have done nothing to alleviate my fears or suspicions. So as long as there is such a close relationship between the reviewer and the reviewed I will be suspicious. Just like doctors getting swag from drug companies.

Do you have any idea how rare that is? Yes, it's stupid PR and fortunately it's not the norm.

You're right that I'm not popular enough to be 'bribed', but you know what? So is pretty much every of my collegues ever. Worst I've seen was hotel stays for review purposes. We're regular folks being underpaid to review games and we're more or less okay with that, because we love games. That's what's normal. And now it sounds like you think I'm at fault for being a regular critic/journalist/whatever...

The way people cling to big name faux pas reminds me of how other people read those rags about celebrities... It's fun to imagine the worst and gossip about it, isn't it?

Hey there. I at one point wanted to be a gaming journo myself, but the whole kerfuffle in the last 6 months has driven me away. Anyway, I honestly believe you're telling the truth, that the overwhelming majority of game journos are NOT biased. However, you yourself make a good point when you mention your influence. The bribery that you say is rare, most likely IS rare, as it is usually reserved for those with the greatest level of influence. For example, TotalBiscuit once mentioned being bribed with an Alienware laptop with the game he was to review being pre-installed on the laptop. It wouldn't surprise me if companies like EA started bribing Pewdiepie sooner or later, given his influence. Most of gaming journalism is dying, and to be honest, it's been a long time coming.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Paid for reviews? Nothing wrong there. Reviews are essentially opinions. Well 70% Opinion. 30% description.

Now since we can agree on this. If I am paid to review a game favourably, then well my opinion of a game is going to be higher because it is paying me money. Ideally if you're checking reviews though you should be aggregating multiple sources.

Also read the reviews. Believe it or not... people can be paid to give negative reviews too you know. It's not unheard of to pay a review to give your competitor's product a scathing review. Hence why it's good tocheck multiple sources.

 

[NPC009]

Hey there. I at one point wanted to be a gaming journo myself, but the whole kerfuffle in the last 6 months has driven me away.

That's a shame (and that's not sarcasm). If you want to write about games, you should, even if it's just for fun. I've come to the point where the whole stinkbomb killed much of my motivation, but it shouldn't be like that.

Anyway, I honestly believe you're telling the truth, that the overwhelming majority of game journos are NOT biased. However, you yourself make a good point when you mention your influence. The bribery that you say is rare, most likely IS rare, as it is usually reserved for those with the greatest level of influence. For example, TotalBiscuit once mentioned being bribed with an Alienware laptop with the game he was to review being pre-installed on the laptop. It wouldn't surprise me if companies like EA started bribing Pewdiepie sooner or later, given his influence. Most of gaming journalism is dying, and to be honest, it's been a long time coming.

Publishers are already getting to Youtube and Twitch stars with a different tactic: content. Show the right bits of gameplay, say the right words and you get early access to games. That was what the whole Shadow of Mordor thing was about. It's probably especially appealing to the mid-level ones, the people who get by with their Youtube/streaming business but don't have the luxery to fill their channel with whatever they like, like Pewdiepie does. This is the reason it kind of bothers me when people herald Youtubers/streamers as the new, totally honest critics. We don't always know what's happening behind the scenes and unlike gaming magazines/websites, there's no editorial wall between critics and creators. (TB is on my trusted list, though I usually watch his stuff to see what he thinks of whatever weird stuff I'm playing.)

I think there's and will always be a place for gamejournalism, even the traditional written kind. However, I do think the industry, press and gamers all need an attitude adjustment when it comes to reviews. Scores aren't sacred, there's more than one correct opinion. Reviews should be more about analysing games and conveying experiences, not just 'good gameplay, avarage music, nice graphics 7/10'.

 

[Arluza]

It is not that the reviewing magazines get to put a price on a review score (though such a practice could be happening somewhere and we don't know it.) the problem is that the product being reviewed is also the ad revenue for the magazine or website.

Gaming magazines and websites that do reviews are also sponsored with ads from the same companies. And if you want review copies of future games, you must keep them in good graces. So you get score inflation. a 7/10 is an average game now on many places. an 8 is pretty good, 9 is great, 10 is a must buy. If you give Assassin's Creed Unity a 7/10 due to endless bugs and bad performance and Ubisoft says "we're not going to interact with this reviewing site anymore. No more ads or review copies." that site or zine just lost ad revenue and sales to consumers because they have to wait an extra cycle (week/month/whatever) and now no one who loves AC games will look to that website or zine because they can get the same info faster.

But the zine/website can say "Hey, AC:U was pretty good still. We gave it a 7. Needed polish but we liked it." then Ubisoft looks the fool and may lose future sales. The reviewer site is covered with these inflated scores.

The only way to fix this is to get non-developer/publisher ad revenue that can keep your site/magazine afloat without it. We've got some of this. Dell (With Alienware) AMD, Nvida, Pepsi with Mountain Dew, etc. These sources don't care about if AC:U got a 7 or a 3, it doesn't hurt their sales. However, gaming doesn't have as broad of a demographic a TV or movies, so this type of conflict of interest likely will stay for a while.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

*sighs*

Okay, picture this, OP: you're a freelance game critic. You've worked your ass off to manage to free yourself from the editorial control of your former publishers, and are now depending on Patreon donations and a Kickstarter project to not only produce your reviews, but also keep food on the table. Chances are you aren't living in the lap of luxury, and that any and all opportunities to line your pockets will be welcomed.

Now, you *need* to purchase the latest consoles and games for the sake of your job. Games are your livelihood, after all. You need to purchase tons of them, as everyone expects you to cover the latest AAA releases. As you're freelance, getting a press release copy is either an occasional fluke or something you have to ask, if not beg for. Most of the time, you buy your review material on Day One, same as the average gamer.

In somes a publisher with a tantalizing offer: you can emphasize certain parts of the game or turn a blind eye to another part which, it admits, haven't been worked on as fully as the rest. If you do that, the publisher offers to keep you in its good graces; to give you easier access to future games it could produce, or to sponsor some of the acquisitions you need to make. PC gaming isn't cheap, so Random Publisher's Rep says "Fine, we'll toss a dual-SLI rig your way or finance its building costs!"

Not being a reviewer, you'd obviously say that giving the rep a solid middle finger would come easily. You'll cite Jim Sterling, who seems to be doing okay on his own. You'll cite Greg Miller leaving IGN to produce his own brand of YouTube content. You'll cite TotalBiscuit, who is notorious for ferretting out cases of publishers offering to facilitate a reviewer's work in exchange for good press. Angry Joe and his "review-tainment" approach that's managed to garner a lot of good will from the community.

The thing is, notoriety affords integrity and integrity affords freedom from certain forms of compromise. Even then, professional outlets have server costs to cover. If they tank a publisher's products too often, then review copies will dry out. No review copies means no reviews. No reviews means no trafic or ad-site revenue. No revenue means no site.

Complete objectivity is a lot like complete integrity - both of them are nice and rosy myths we like to cling to. For all of the disclaimers in the world, there's going to be someone left to suggest that The Escapist, for instance, isn't hard enough on Take Two Entertainment's games. There's always going to be someone left to say their favorite outlet or reviewer "sold out".

That, honestly, is what would lack objectivity.

Start by assuming that reviews are subjective impressions, and then diversity your website regimen. If one site gives a given game a score you'd consider to be suspiciously high, then establish an average by looking at other outlets. Consult your fellow gamers. Build your own picture. Only then can you hope to be honestly objective.

As for IGN supposedly changing its ways and no longer producing "paid" reviews - that's also a matter of perspective.

 

[Sarge034]

Do you have any idea how rare that is? Yes, it's stupid PR and fortunately it's not the norm.

Then you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying to look at how common and blatant it is. Just that when you already have a distrust in general and overt shady shit happens every once in a while it's hard to move past that distrust. You know, I've never seen a reviewer take a stand and say the swag was inappropriate and refuse it on the spot. I've never seen a reviewer speak up at an event and say that controlled environment testing is unacceptable. I've never seen that level of journalistic integrity.

You're right that I'm not popular enough to be 'bribed', but you know what? So is pretty much every of my collegues ever. Worst I've seen was hotel stays for review purposes. We're regular folks being underpaid to review games and we're more or less okay with that, because we love games. That's what's normal. And now it sounds like you think I'm at fault for being a regular critic/journalist/whatever...

Are you at fault? I don't know, as I said I don't know you. But you are a part of a group that (in general) has had a growing disconnect with their audience at the same time appearing to grow closer to publishers. Unless some serious changes happen in the way game journalists as a whole conduct themselves, I can very easily see them getting a persistent bad rep like lawyers. It's not about what is true or not, it's about what appears to be true.

The way people cling to big name faux pas reminds me of how other people read those rags about celebrities... It's fun to imagine the worst and gossip about it, isn't it?

From experience, the public only hears about .01% of shit that goes on behind the scenes. It's been that way in every job I've ever had, every club I've ever been a part of, everything. So when there is a break in the façade of normality, or faux pas as you say, then you're getting a candid glimpse of who people/groups really are. think about some big name events and see what I mean. When IGN got reamed several years ago everyone distanced themselves from them because IGN is akin to a tabloid. Game journalist's and the public's response to the Zoe Quinn allegations. Everyone's reactions to the GG mess.

 

[NPC009]

Do you have any idea how rare that is? Yes, it's stupid PR and fortunately it's not the norm.

Then you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying to look at how common and blatant it is. Just that when you already have a distrust in general and overt shady shit happens every once in a while it's hard to move past that distrust. You know, I've never seen a reviewer take a stand and say the swag was inappropriate and refuse it on the spot. I've never seen a reviewer speak up at an event and say that controlled environment testing is unacceptable. I've never seen that level of journalistic integrity.

You woudldn't see something like that anyway unless you're part of the industry. Publishers make sure to keep stuff like that behind closed doors as much as possible.

That said, it's not that uncommon for us to say we aren't cool with something. For instance, Nintendo originally wanted me to come over to their office and play Xenoblade Chronicles there. I told them that wasn't such a great idea for such a massive RPG, and that I'd be able to put in more hours and write a more polished review at home. Of course I made sure to mention I was really looking forward to the game (which I was). Day later I got my review copy in the mail. I've seen and heard colleagues do similar things.

Making a stance in general, though? That's asking for loads of problems, especially if they assume you're speaking on behalf of the publication you work for. It's more sensible to kindly direct them were you want them. It won't always work, but it won't get you into any unneccesary trouble.

Are you at fault? I don't know, as I said I don't know you. But you are a part of a group that (in general) has had a growing disconnect with their audience at the same time appearing to grow closer to publishers. Unless some serious changes happen in the way game journalists as a whole conduct themselves, I can very easily see them getting a persistent bad rep like lawyers. It's not about what is true or not, it's about what appears to be true.

Hey, I don't have any power over gamejourno's outside of my circle. Telling me, or anyone in a similar position as me, to take responsibility for every gamejourno ever is a really dickish move. No one can live up to expectations as unreasonable as that.

Of course I'd like to see all the distrust go away, but it's not something the press can do on its own. What readers need to do is find critics, journalists and publications they can trust. They are out there already, you just need to find something that suits your preferences.

From experience, the public only hears about .01% of shit that goes on behind the scenes. It's been that way in every job I've ever had, every club I've ever been a part of, everything. So when there is a break in the façade of normality, or faux pas as you say, then you're getting a candid glimpse of who people/groups really are. think about some big name events and see what I mean. When IGN got reamed several years ago everyone distanced themselves from them because IGN is akin to a tabloid. Game journalist's and the public's response to the Zoe Quinn allegations. Everyone's reactions to the GG mess.

From my experience, people are having way to much fun making ordinary people look like some evil overlords that want to change their very identity to suit some feminist narrative, or something like that.

From my experience, the image of journalists who travel the world to play games and party with devs is what's fake. Reality is mundane. Underpaid reviewers play their games in sad little apartments while seeing their love for gaming being crushed underneath heavy deadlines and asshole internet commentors.

 

[hermes]

"A game that I don't like got high review scores. They must be paid off!"

The flip coin of my favorite conspiracy theory: A game that I like got mediocre review scores. They must be paid off; by the competition!

Seriously the number of times I saw people complaining because the latest exclusive wasn't lauded as the second coming... Hilarious.

 

[Pseudonym]

I think we should keep in mind that a lot of people who are game journalists have heard of all these shady practices and I am pretty damn sure Jim Sterling, Angry Joe or TotalBiscuit would let the whole wide world know the second somebody tried to bribe them. And those are only the vocal people I've heard of. I'm pretty sure there are enough popular reviewers that have enough of a spine to not let attempted bribery slide. A publisher has to be pretty damn careful about bribing reviewers if that's what they want to do. Enough publishers and marketing companies have been called out for less. (the Shadow of mordor restrictions on reviewcopies and the xbox-machinima-thing are examples that come to mind) Now I do believe the line between game criticism (or buyers-guide-writing) and marketing is often too thin. Some companies are continually pushing boundaries of what they can get away with in terms of paying people for their opinions and if you don't pay attention as a reviewer you might find yourself at events or conversations where you should start to doubt whether the intentions of everyone are right.

 

[HankyPanky]

Saw this on KotakuInAction. Based on the playtime and the scores given, it strongly implies some foul play:http://i.imgur.com/fZfJNpL.jpg

 

[Vlado]

Reviewers tend to give inflated scores to big-budget games. Often, ad space on the site is bought, and the game receives several points higher in result. This has been the case for many years - anyone remember the Gerstmann case with Kane & Lynch? That was probably the most famous and obvious example (though, of course, still not 100% "proof" in the eyes of the ones who refuse to see).

That's why I started to write reviews myself - somebody has got to give honest scores.

 

[NPC009]

Saw this on KotakuInAction. Based on the playtime and the scores given, it strongly implies some foul play:http://i.imgur.com/fZfJNpL.jpg

That looks very depressing, but keep in mind that it's not uncommon for sites/mags to get spare download codes or not use their code in the first place. Those usually go to whatever writers wants them. Those low play times may very well be from people who got a download code but are not actually reviewing the game.

Oh, and while some publishers can be total asshats when it comes to distributing codes (hi, Konami!), there are also those that just throw as many codes as there as they can and see what sticks. For instance, it's quite easy to get on NISA's list and once you're on there you get a download code for pretty much every game they publish.

 

[Ishigami]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70616607/dossier.html

A report on questionable relationships between game journalism and publishers/developer.

I haven?t based my purchase decision on reviews for quite some time now. I usually go by gameplay videos which get released before the launch.

 

[Bill Bongo]

I used to write reviews for various mobile games, and yes, every single one of them wanted a "positive review". They didn't all have to be good, and they didn't outright say it, but the times I honestly reviewed a game, those would always get returned for a re-write. If even the little game companies are budgeting money for this type of "PR", then it is pretty safe to assume that this goes on with AAA games, to some extent. Though they really don't need to approach this problem like this. Many times a veiled threat is enough, most times, developers for those games aren't activly "hiring" people to write reviews, rather give incitive (often, the threat of removal of advertising funding is enough).

My thought at the time was "there is no way anyone reading my review could seriously think Vegas Generic Slots 2015 was an awesome game, and no one would ever think I was being legit here."

I personally, stopped doing request for reviews and would only review games I liked (this doesn't net you nearly the same amount of money, as writing reviews for anyone who asks, but I can sleep better at night, never felt comfortable giving positive reviews for crap mobile games). This is pretty common for mobile games actually.

TLDR:
This stuff does go on in the mobile gaming industry, a lot, but no one cares because everyone knows those games are crap. AAA industry games, not so much, they punish reviewers rather then pay them.

 

[Sarge034]

You woudldn't see something like that anyway unless you're part of the industry. Publishers make sure to keep stuff like that behind closed doors as much as possible.

That said, it's not that uncommon for us to say we aren't cool with something. For instance, Nintendo originally wanted me to come over to their office and play Xenoblade Chronicles there. I told them that wasn't such a great idea for such a massive RPG, and that I'd be able to put in more hours and write a more polished review at home. Of course I made sure to mention I was really looking forward to the game (which I was). Day later I got my review copy in the mail. I've seen and heard colleagues do similar things.

Making a stance in general, though? That's asking for loads of problems, especially if they assume you're speaking on behalf of the publication you work for. It's more sensible to kindly direct them were you want them. It won't always work, but it won't get you into any unneccesary trouble.

And this is a summary of my problems. Yes, the publishers would want to keep this under wraps but the reviewers are under no obligation to. Why didn't one reviewer at that event where tablets were given out say no on the spot and post the shenanigans? Could it be they fear the repercussions of the publisher? Does that not prove my point in it's entirety?

Hey, I don't have any power over gamejourno's outside of my circle. Telling me, or anyone in a similar position as me, to take responsibility for every gamejourno ever is a really dickish move. No one can live up to expectations as unreasonable as that.

Of course I'd like to see all the distrust go away, but it's not something the press can do on its own. What readers need to do is find critics, journalists and publications they can trust. They are out there already, you just need to find something that suits your preferences.

I didn't say you did. I never told you to. I've met really cool and nice lawyers, doesn't change the fact that lawyers (as a group) have a shit reputation. They (as a group) earned that rep over years of scum and villainy. I'm just drawing parallels.

From my experience, people are having way to much fun making ordinary people look like some evil overlords that want to change their very identity to suit some feminist narrative, or something like that.

Then you agree with me? People showing their true colors when the norm is broken. Someone is their truest self when put in extreme situations (more on that below). The mundane is just that; mundane, polite, civil, false.

From my experience, the image of journalists who travel the world to play games and party with devs is what's fake. Reality is mundane. Underpaid reviewers play their games in sad little apartments while seeing their love for gaming being crushed underneath heavy deadlines and asshole internet commentors.

But it isn't fake. I can post link after link after link of it happening. How can you claim that perception is false? The norm? Disputing that I can understand, but the fact it happens at all is enough to poison the pool as they say. Now for more on the extreme situations comment above. In all these things I approach reviewers (and journalists in general) with an open distrust. I try to be civil and explain how bad it looks out here but distrust none the less. You appear to be of the mindset that people who don't agree with you are inherently wrong and/or "asshole internet commenters". I'll be the first to say there are indeed assholes on the internet, but the reviewer's current mindset of "fuck ya'all, we're doing fine" is just as bad.