Slashdot Mirror
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.
I'd say you got ripped off.
'Cause it sure as heck doesn't look like a honest reviewing process to me.
At the very least it's dishonesty. They're lying to their readers (in the case of their sites) and to their customers (in the case of Atari.)
It also goes contrary to all that a review was supposed to mean. At that point, it's no longer a review, it's a paid _ad_. Just when I thought that the lame-ass ads disguised as reviews (some with ludicrious scores like 110%) of lame ragazines of the past were finally dead and burried, here comes an even lamer variant. One that even in the fine print isn't actually marked as an ad.
Lame. Real real lame.
Personally I'd like to see a list with sites which do this kind of crap, just so I know never to read them again.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
"What would you say if I told you I received a blowjob for giving the original Redneck Racing a 10/10?"
How much money did you save that week?
"Derp de derp."
This kind of bs doesnt just happen in the game industry, sadly enough.
These marketing tactics are used to promote everything from computer parts to cars to movies...
There are even survey companies who have unscrupulous practices, such as giving clients the survey results they want to get, as opposed to what people are really responding, because clients would otherwise go from one survey company to the next until they got the results they expected.
There are even other less scrupulous "award/review" companies who hold "best business" surveys, then call each business in order to tell them they were "chosen". If this business accepts to pay the fee, they can put the Award logo up in their ads, on their premises, etc. If the top business declines, they just go on to the next one, and so on.
Never believe the hype.
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??
.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It means the printed 2.5 million copies of the game and sent them to retailsers, which is a huge financial gamble because they have to pay royalties on all those copies (not to mention printing costs). It's estimated to be in the $20 million range.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
I find it hard to believe that Atari would be stupid enough to make an explicit demand like that. Having said that, no game reviewer can stay in business without access to games, so there's no doubt that some game reviewers may temper their opinions a bit.
:-)
Hell, it's no different from any other kind of journalism. You think that Michael Moore gets a seat on the press bus for George W's campaign? Preserving access to sources is a consideration for anyone in this business - except maybe restaurant reviewers.
I'm OK with a reviewer who thinks that a game is the worst PoS published in the last decade toning down the rhetoric for publication and saying the game is "bad," or "unenjoyable," or "not recommended," but in the Driv3r situation, the reviewers do seem to have gone beyond being tactful into blatantly wrong/misleading reviews. As someone earlier suggested, these sites/magazines won't stay in business too long if they develop a reputation for being unreliable, so this may be a self-correcting problem.
Despearation makes people or companies do stupid things. Like realise that their next game is unfinished, unplayable, hugely expensive and that they need a big "opening weekend" before players catch on and kill it with word of mouth, in order to recoup their investment. We got Driv3r in the mail Saturday, and boy did it suck. Shading issues, clipping, poorly envisioned and executed code, terrible animations for charaters, the list goes on. The worst part was that we wouldn't be able to get the piece of crap in the mail until Monday, thus annhiliating our chance of any new gaming fun this weekend. I cannot believe that any reviewing body or publication would not advise ATARI to open up that mine where they dumped all of those E.T. cartridges and top it off with Driv3r.
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.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
It's extremely rare that one of those games gets a good review in the following issue.