The Contempt of Publishers for Game Reviewers

Newsweek's LevelUp blog is, without a doubt, one of the smartest voices in games writing today. For a great example of that, look no further than N'Gai's recent discussion of 'Gerstmann-gate', which focuses not on the particulars of the incident but what it means in a larger context. "The Gerstmann-C|Net incident, therefore, suggests that having successfully stage-managed the first two parts of the [game coverage] process for years, thanks to the generous spirit in which previews and features have long been written, certain publishers may now be flexing their muscles more forcefully when it comes to the third: reviews. This publisher-editorial tension, as one journalist from an enthusiast outlet informed us, is at its most contentious during the run-up to Christmas, because the pre-holiday period is the time of year when stakes are highest for some companies. That's even more true during this holiday season, which despite the absence of Grand Theft Auto IV will go down as one of the most competitive on record, loaded as it is with AAA hopefuls all seeking their place in the sun." And indeed, perhaps some portions of the games market have 'transcended' these petty squabbles. Certainly EA Casual doesn't care about reviews, and who really needs a game reviewer to tell you whether Brain Age 3 is any good? To revisit the reason this article was written, we turn again to Joystiq, who has been following it closely.

Comments

Exactly as I thought!

[airedalez]

For years I really wondered if the guys playing these games were getting paid to say "nice things". This whole thing has just confirmed that sentiment.

Make games that don't suck

[CastrTroy]

If you make games that don't suck, and that are innovative, then you have nothing to fear from game reviewers. Most of the time, they don't give bad reviews to good games. Sometimes a good game will get a bad review from a couple reviewers, but not often.

Re:Make games that don't suck

[Cathoderoytube]

New and innovative games are a risk though. Just look what happened with the Wind Waker. At its core it was The Legend of Zelda and it had great gameplay and visuals. But a lot of people didn't like the look of the game so they stayed away from it. I remember reading reviews on it saying the game was only fit for 'mewling kittens'. Mind you, not ALL games are like that, but I imagine developers still see these sorts of projects as too much of a risk. Have a look at how many companies are either making MMORPGS or first person shooters. So really it's easier just to make games based on the market research and bribe the reviewers. Any reviewers that get out of line can be dealt with.

Really PC Gamer would go belly up if they gave honest reviews.

Then don't send them a copy

[Rolgar]

Don't send a copy to the reviewer/publisher. At least you'll get your opening day sales before they can go buy the game and review it a month late in their magazine. Of course, you'll be giving up all kinds of 'free' advertising (hype) if your game is of the type that would benefit from hype.

Word of mouth, or user reviews are still the best advertisement a game will ever have. Professional reviews are just people who do it for a living. I've never had a gaming magazine, but I always check user reviews at places like gamespot.com or metacritic before I consider spending my money. If you don't pony up with the reviewers, I'll still get the same information I have had before, and other people will resort to waiting instead of buying on opening day unless you're selling Halo 4 or Spore, which many people will still wait to read some reviews.

It's no secret..

[dTd]

This has been going on aand discussed on many different topics for my entire adult life. In one instance it was motorcycle magazines or car magazines or computer magazines and now online game review sites. All have their hand in the advertising cookie jar which makes reliable reviewing a huge conflict of interest. Kodus to the honest reviewer for giving truth a chance. /dTd