On Early Driv3r Reviews, World Exclusives

(54)T-Dub writes "SPOnG has a very interesting article about Atari's latest iteration in the Driver series: Driv3r. Back in May there was a SpOnG messageboard post claiming that Atari was demanding a 9/10 score in exchange for early review code. In the heated race for the early reviews, two UK-based Future Publishing publications, Xbox World and PSM2 ran cover stories for Driv3r, and coincidentally gave the game a 9/10 score. XBox World even dubbed it 'the new GTA' while PSM claimed to have 'the World's first and only review' of the PS2 version. As earlier reported on Slashdot Games, subsequent reviews for the quite buggy Xbox and PlayStation 2 versions of the game have hovered in the 60s. Having shipped 2.5 million copies it's estimated that Atari is gambling over $60 million on this game." While the source is hardly concrete, and claims of 'bribery' are likely overblown, it's interesting to ruminate on how getting an "exclusive review" affects game scoring, a phenomenon not limited to Driv3r.

Comments

Can you handle the truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

People people people... please don't be so naive. This sort of thing happens all the time.

What would you say if I told you I received a blowjob for giving the original Redneck Racing a 10/10?

Re:How the heck is it not bribery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of advertising budgets influencing reviews?

Car magazines give glowing reviews to Toyota and Honda. PC magazines swoon over Dell. It's like this all the time.

Reviews aren't worth the paper they're printed on in most cases.

cczz

Rewards now, losses later...

[BTWR]

Magazines that cater to these bribes (and yes, such cases are bribes/extortion/blackmail) will rake in $$$ and readers now, with their "exclusive reviews," but will pay for it later when readers learn of such ripoffs.

Magazines like Consumer Reports have bent over backwards to give unbiased reports, and readers feel that they can trust them. Could CR have sold out and given better reviews in return for "donations?" Sure. Would it help their immediate revenue? You bet. Would it still be credible now, 40 years (whatever) after they came around? Not a chance.

Re:Rewards now, losses later...

[DeepHurtn!]

Could CR have sold out and given better reviews in return for "donations?" Sure. Would it help their immediate revenue? You bet. Would it still be credible now, 40 years (whatever) after they came around? Not a chance.

This is my problem with a lot of video game "journalism" -- it just smells like amateur hour most of the time. The standard of writing and actual insight, on the whole, just isn't very high. (As video games grow in mainstream popularity and escape the geek stereotype, hopefully this will change.) News of bribing for positive reviews just doesn't surprise me at all.

not new practice..

[gl4ss]

not news at all, not in any sense.

it would be news if the mags made real reviews.

but if you're gambling 60 million why not go the extra mile and hire some guys to make the game a good one??

.

Re:Reviewers: piss off publishers--go out of busin

[(54)T-Dub]

That's why I never believe "Previews" because I'm sure they had to get some PR's shlong all sloppy just get the preview and promise to do the same for the game. Reviews should be a different matter though.