Slashdot Mirror
Adverjournalism - The Role of Ad Dollars in Media
Gamer 2.0 writes "The Gamer 2.0 site has a look into the role of advertising in gaming journalism, with a few reflections especially topical given the Jeff Gerstmann controversy. From the article: 'It should come as no surprise that just about every gaming forum on the internet is ablaze right now following the news of GameSpot's termination of long-time editor, Jeff Gerstmann. This article, however, is not an exposé or look into what really happened at GameSpot this week. Rather, consider this a look at the direction of gaming journalism, advertising, and how this all plays a role in the content you read.'" There have been a few more developments in the situation since Thursday night, with rumours, scuttlebutt, analysis, and cynicism reigning on every message board from here to C|Net. There has even been a spontaneous act of solidarity from elsewhere in the games journalism field.
This is news? to who?
I've long known that all the top 'review' sites are just paid shills. Every single game is rated 'game of the year' even when its a total piece of crap that barely runs.
You can't trust any reviews other than SOME user reviews since many of those are astroturfed as well..
The same is true for any sort of review. hardware, software, games, cars, books, movies, music...
Nobody should be suprised that its the product companys who have the real power in the review process.
cap:filthier
Press outlets struggle with maintaining integrity and advertising dollars. Film at 11.
Seriously, why are people acting like the gaming press is any different from the "real" press? From the New York Times to my local "free" weekly, this kind of stuff happens all the time. Gaming journalism is no different than regular journalism. It's just that it's more blatant in gaming media because their stock in trade is reviews.
So you can laugh all you want to...
Yeah this is no big surprise. Nor are the pieces with no new information surfing the outrage. However, there are good review sites out there and there is an easy test for them. Read the latest 10 reviews. If at least 2 aren't trashing the object of the review as junk, there just might be a bias somewhere. This is for games, tech, TVs, cars, food or whatever. If everything you see is fantastic, I don't want your opinion.
After a while of playing clone after clone after clone, you somehow get sick of games in general unless they're groundbreaking. Clones sell though because there will always be people new to playing video game, while you... the game reviewer become sick of the same ol same ol. Yes, payola is bad. But if you were an honest game reviewer, you could easily lapse into,"Man, this game is just like Un Squadron, which is just a better version of Gradius, which is just a better version of River Raid." And if I was a serious game reviewer, I'd probably write a tree of games, just so I could place any new game down on a new node, but inheriting the properties of the parent games. At least that's just my first thought. What does it take to be a real game reviewer if your goal isn't to get paid?
God spoke to me.
From TFA:
This is patently false. These things do not happen "all the time". Of course there are pressures from advertisers when they do not like a review or a score, no doubt, but this does not affect the review or score of the game. Most publications have a strict separation between advertising and editorial and this is intentional. In fact, I would say the larger the publication, the less likely this is to happen. Most smaller publications are more apt to take any advertising they can get, because they get so little.
I keep seeing people say "they know" editors are paid off for positive press, but nobody ever backs it up with proof. And there's a reason for this, it so rarely happens there usually is no proof to be had. Just read the article for example, it takes one horrible event (which should have never happened), and extrapolates it across the entire industry with nothing to back it up other than conjecture. One bad decision by the management at CNet/Gamespot does not mean the entire industry is corrupt, because it's not. Take off the tin foil hat.
No, not "anything" positive, just a nice, healthy chunk of it. Take the recent Zune story we played with on /. this morning for instance... it was quickly disassembled and found to be pure marketing bullshit - with not even five minutes' checking. Any decent reporter could've done the same thing, and should have.
A real tech reporter would've done this checking and would have tempered the story with at least those caveats (that is, no, the Zune isn't the hottest selling portable music player overall, just the hottest selling 'year-old-model-in-this-narrow-category' item). Yet our intrepid "Tech Diva" was too enraptured by the Zune to do even the most cursory checks.
But MSFT aside, my big complaint is that basic cynicism in tech journalism ("rule #1 - if a vendor posts a press release, it's liable to be bullshit") is about as rare as virginity in a porn flick these days.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's that simple, and it's exactly what is going on right now; every world event, large and small points to it. Most of us will get to see the whole system fall big-time in this life. Cool, huh?
The Romans had to wait around for a thousand years before their greed-rotted system fell apart. I guess it was that their empire just ran slower. Goods and information moved at the speed of boots and horses instead of cars and trucks. The speed of greed.
How are you manage when the money stops flowing? Have you built your support networks yet? Have you learned how to share your toys? Figure it out, because flashy game reviews aren't going to keep you warm at night. Neither is your 'Whee', for that matter.
-FL
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I've provided a very simple means to check against this (and actively encourage anyone in the IT or games biz --respectively-- to use it). You've provided little more than "tin foil hat" and "you have no idea what you're talking about" coupled with a variation of 'because I say so' as evidence.
I'm afraid that you'll have to do far better than that, unless you're simply trolling.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?