The Concept of "Selling Out"

Recommended Videos

IKWerewolf

New member
Jan 13, 2011
201
0
0
OK before we open a flaming war lets hit the brake and say how we got here. At the same time this is not aimed at anyone being wrong or right... this is just a Point (rude to do so but sometimes you don't want to speak to tell someone where to go).

I recently watched the Dead Space 3 review and went to put my opinion in the forum and saw someone being extremely sarcastic! Why the sarcasm?... someone made the comment for comical purposes that someone random person would make accusations of selling out... THAT COMMENT ALONE LIKE A RED RAG TO A BULL! and the equivalent of a "Super Quintiple, Quaduple, Triple, Double Dare" and someone for fun (as you do on the forums here) made the uber sarcastic remark...

... you know what go look at the comments for the review and see why I needed to say this. Instead I'm looking to define the idea of selling out.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.400170-Dead-Space-3-Review?page=1

The concept of selling out is as old as Kane N Lynch and Gamespot who together commited marketing suicide and so was born the concept of selling out (unofficially).

This is the obvious list that defines the concept of sell out:

- Is there is undue influence in terms of additional revenue streams
- Is the size of the company/business/website large enough to require that revenue stream?
- Is there the threat from external companies made by the revenue stream?

As you can see, the fact is that every company and website is vulnerable to the sell out concepts, we live in an economy driven world and is why the Sell Out Brigade is ready with loud speakers positioned behind bigger loud speakers.

But there are two important factors that create the defining line.

- Is there an intention to deceive the public with the review (malice)?
- Has the Publisher limited the reviewer to a certain level of access?

And here is where the term Sell Out is made or broken.... has the reviewer chosen to lie to please a Publisher?

At the same time, if they have only been given limited access to a "good" portion of the game then they have not sold out, they have only been given half the picture, how can you expect a reviewer to give a full view with half the knowledge.

Ask these four questions:

- Is there is a history of reviewers giving low reviews to non revenue stream games?
- Is the review heavily unbalanced towards the positive?
- Have they played the game for longer than 50% of the game's run time?
- Have they chosen not to place any disclaimers on the Review if any of the above has occured?

If the answer is yes to all four then you are dealing with a Sell Out, otherwise no.

Now remember the idea of Sell Out is different to being biased towards a genre, this is a completely different idea and can change reviews; but this one is for dealing with much later potentially by the Reviewers themselves (Hint so big you can see it from Neptune).

EDIT: A lot of the opinions have argued me to be wrong and some proved me right. I think its only fair to thank those that have taught; I'm not a journalist but I'm a gamer and I like to say what I feel is going on. I go from my own expieriences and actually like when I'm being proven wrong because I have learned.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
I understand "selling out" as catering to a different audience and not to your original fans.

The idea for game reviewers is that they could maybe be bought or pressured.
When can you prove that this is the case? Probably never. Suspicion isn't enough.
It's much easier to simply dismiss a mag because their reviews suck.
 

IKWerewolf

New member
Jan 13, 2011
201
0
0
veloper said:
I understand "selling out" as catering to a different audience and not to your original fans.
You are right, unfortunately the way "selling out" is seen as these days (in part) after the Kane N Lynch fiasco is selling out to Publishers not a different audience.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
No, veloper is right (unless this is some weird British vs American English thing like "tabled.") Selling out generally refers to some perceived compromise of artistic integrity for material reasons, eg an artist shunning their indie roots in favor of a major publisher/label/etc or changing their style to appeal to more mainstream audiences. What you're referring to, I'd call buying off. ("Band X sold out by signing with Label Y. Label Y bought off Music Site Z to get them a 10.0.")
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
bananafishtoday said:
No, veloper is right (unless this is some weird British vs American English thing like "tabled.") Selling out generally refers to some perceived compromise of artistic integrity for material reasons, eg an artist shunning their indie roots in favor of a major publisher/label/etc or changing their style to appeal to more mainstream audiences. What you're referring to, I'd call buying off. ("Band X sold out by signing with Label Y. Label Y bought off Music Mag Z.")
Yep, this is how "selling out" is perceived everywhere, I believe. To Wikipedia!

Selling out is the compromising of integrity, morality, or principles in exchange for personal gain, such as money. In terms of music or art, selling out is associated with attempts to tailor material to a mainstream or commercial audience, for example a musician who alters their material to encompass a wider audience may be labeled by fans who pre-date the change as a sellout.
I too would call what OP is describing as "buying off".
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
While the phrase itself actually has a meaning, it's thrown around as a useless buzzword by frothing internet forumites so often that it's about as meaningful to run across as the phrase "dumbed down" - By which I mean, as soon as I see somebody using it non-ironically, I automatically assume the opposite is what has actually happened. (That's hyperbole, folks.)

In an ideal world, "selling out" would be reserved for use against people who openly admit that they're homogenizing the art they create because they just want to make more money. Unfortunately, since we live in the real world, "selling out" is used for everything from a band being signed to a publishing label to a Youtube LPer playing a AAA game. Hence why I tend to not take it seriously any longer.
 

TaboriHK

New member
Sep 15, 2008
811
0
0
Selling out is the compromising of integrity, morality, or principles in exchange for personal gain, such as money.
In other words, that's every artist you've ever heard of.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
While the phrase itself actually has a meaning, it's thrown around as a useless buzzword by frothing internet forumites so often that it's about as meaningful to run across as the phrase "dumbed down" - By which I mean, as soon as I see somebody using it non-ironically, I automatically assume the opposite is what has actually happened. (That's hyperbole, folks.)

In an ideal world, "selling out" would be reserved for use against people who openly admit that they're homogenizing the art they create because they just want to make more money. Unfortunately, since we live in the real world, "selling out" is used for everything from a band being signed to a publishing label to a Youtube LPer playing a AAA game. Hence why I tend to not take it seriously any longer.
It's still useful as an unreachable ideal to aspire toward. I mean, sure, it's bandied about by some consumers as a pretentious way of saying "ME ANGRY." But for artists, if you imagine a spectrum from like... Pure Art Indie Games? untainted by money and forged from blood and tears to semi-interactive Mountain Dew commercials, it gives something to aspire toward. Move as close to artistic integrity as you can while remaining financially viable.
 

Polite Sage

New member
Feb 22, 2011
198
0
0
IKWerewolf said:
- Is there an intention to deceive the public with the review (malice)?
- Has the Publisher limited the reviewer to a certain level of access?
OP, I think you'd like to take a look at this video. Talks about the Kane & Lynch and other recent "review controversies".
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Selling out is when you're being bought. When you're presenting, for money, not your own ideas, and work, but what you're told. It's when your integrity is for sale.

In the words of Henry Rollins: "Selling out is when you make the record you're told to make, instead of the one you want to make.". Substitute whatever endeavour you want in place of record in there.

The gamespot K&L controversy didn't spawn it. It's been around for decades. It's been a massive thing in music for ages. The Kane and Lynch controversy brought to light the buying off of proffessional publications in gaming journalism.

And no, your questions are wrong. They're speculation. A sell-out is someone who is doing for the money, something contrary to their artistic or professional identity. Nothing more, nothing less. You can pass all of these questions and be a sell out, and fail them all, and have integrity.

- Is there is a history of reviewers giving low reviews to non revenue stream games?
They don't care about those games, because they're non-revenue. So they have no reason to give them low scores. It serves no purpose.
- Is the review heavily unbalanced towards the positive?
Or, they just might like it? Not everyone has the same opinion.
- Have they played the game for longer than 50% of the game's run time?
Almost never indicated in reviews. It seems that the test has been poorly researched. Have you read less than 50% of the game reviews in existance?
- Have they chosen not to place any disclaimers on the Review if any of the above has occured?
Why would you disclaim the first 2? That's just silly. You disclaim any biasing factors, relation to the producers, profit motive on your behalf, etc.

It seems the OP has no idea about selling out, it's history, or how one would identify it in journalism.
 

IKWerewolf

New member
Jan 13, 2011
201
0
0
Loonyyy said:
Selling out is when you're being bought. When you're presenting, for money, not your own ideas, and work, but what you're told. It's when your integrity is for sale.

In the words of Henry Rollins: "Selling out is when you make the record you're told to make, instead of the one you want to make.". Substitute whatever endeavour you want in place of record in there.

The gamespot K&L controversy didn't spawn it. It's been around for decades. It's been a massive thing in music for ages. The Kane and Lynch controversy brought to light the buying off of proffessional publications in gaming journalism.

And no, your questions are wrong. They're speculation. A sell-out is someone who is doing for the money, something contrary to their artistic or professional identity. Nothing more, nothing less. You can pass all of these questions and be a sell out, and fail them all, and have integrity.

- Is there is a history of reviewers giving low reviews to non revenue stream games?
They don't care about those games, because they're non-revenue. So they have no reason to give them low scores. It serves no purpose.
- Is the review heavily unbalanced towards the positive?
Or, they just might like it? Not everyone has the same opinion.
- Have they played the game for longer than 50% of the game's run time?
Almost never indicated in reviews. It seems that the test has been poorly researched. Have you read less than 50% of the game reviews in existance?
- Have they chosen not to place any disclaimers on the Review if any of the above has occured?
Why would you disclaim the first 2? That's just silly. You disclaim any biasing factors, relation to the producers, profit motive on your behalf, etc.

It seems the OP has no idea about selling out, it's history, or how one would identify it in journalism.
Its a personal opinion after the number of times I have seen this word used recently... I can't argue with history you're right.

You have hit the actual undertone which was present in my mind when I wrote it... WE CAN'T TELL IF SOMEONE HAS SOLD OUT OR BEEN BOUGHT OUT! History suggests that every reveiwer/website is bought out or sold out but the people that really know are the reviewers, the developers and the publishers and some could be actually telling the truth about what they are reviewing.

The word sold out is used way too often, in joke, being serious, its like the BOYCOTT word it has lost all meaning and taken a different perverted one.

But it is getting harder for review sites to sell/get bought out are not alone in getting the news out, if EA didn't give a free game to someone who has merit in reviewing that genre, there are many places that those people can say that they have not been given a free game and that would cause alarm bells to those that know reviewers who could give a true opinion have been ignored.

We'd love people to be honest with us, but its difficult to accept games reviews at face value from major sites.
 

IKWerewolf

New member
Jan 13, 2011
201
0
0
Polite Sage said:
IKWerewolf said:
- Is there an intention to deceive the public with the review (malice)?
- Has the Publisher limited the reviewer to a certain level of access?
OP, I think you'd like to take a look at this video. Talks about the Kane & Lynch and other recent "review controversies".
Apart from the Driver 3 thing that I wasn't aware of, I was aware of many of the other things... the Kane N Lynch controversy was the first story I heard that started to create my distrust in major reviewers and it was the most serious case of a company flexing its muscles I could think of because a man lost his job.

Thank you for showing me this; I'm not a journalist but I'm a gamer and I like to say what I feel is going on. I go from my own expieriences and actually like when I'm being proven wrong because I have learned.