Oh no, I admit that the companies sometimes make the attempt to threaten with advertising money when they don't like a review score. However, I'm just saying that in my experience that doesn't work too often.
As far as the "OMG EXCLUSIVE ++HOT!!" articles go... well, the cover article is *never* a review. It's always a preview, and always something that the magazine thinks will provide incentive to make an impulse purchase based on desire to have information about that "featured preview" product.
Sales and circulation figures are what is presented in the attempt to attract further advertising money... that's the lifeblood of the industry.
I do, however, feel weird when by "coincidence" a big glossy two-page ad for a game shows up right before its review in the magazine. However, sometimes that review is BAD, so while the company might pay for placement they're certainly not paying for an elevated score.
I don't think I've ever heard (and believe me, we're a chatty bunch) from another writer about being instructed to give something anything other than a fair objective score based on the merits of the software. So, if there's anything going on that's unjust then rest assured it's happening at the editorial level and NOT with the individual writers themselves.
Well, at least they don't cram a worthless cdrom down your throat and charge $9.00 instead of the normal $3.95 cover price. Every now and then I get the urge to pick up a magazine that I'm not subscribed to. That means searching the newstand for a non-cd edition of that magazine so I don't have to feel like I almost could have bought a game for the price of 30 minutes worth of reading. However, as time has passed it has become increasingly impossible to find a gaming magazine that doesn't try to justify doubling their marked cover price by giving me a cdrom full of stuff I could have downloaded for free if I'd had any interest in it.
I look at it this way... if I do want to download something at least the only people competing for bandwidth with me on gamespot are other paying subscribers. And, I'm not getting stiffed $4 for a cd I don't want:-)
"The fact that they are losing money atleast means one good thing and is they aren't accepting money from publishers for good reviews."
Let me educate you about something...
I'm a game reviewer. While I haven't written for Gamespot, I know Greg Kasavin moderately well and know many of the people who write for him. Personally, I have experience with one magazine and two other websites. So, let me clue everybody in on how this works:
The subject of gaming publications getting funny money for knocking review scores up just isn't true. It's pure speculatory myth. Game magazines make money by selling space for those big glossy advertisements in their magazine... that's it. Also, most reputable ones don't even allow game companies to fly their writers out to the office to see game previews... usually this is done at the magazine's expense - to avoid looking like they're accepting favors and obliged to give preferential treatment.
So, they sell advertising space. In my personal experience, the one time that a company was very displeased with what I had to say in a review they did try to threaten the magazine about it - because they claimed that my accusations of the unfinished state of the game were unjust. However, my editor told them essientially "No, he's correct and we're running it as it stands." Their only means of sabre rattling was to threaten to pull advertising money out and not run their ads... well, who does that hurt worse? Them. Ok, so at that point the argument is over, the ads stayed and the review kept its score.
Occasionally there *is* a situation where an editor will adjust the score you turn in with your review. That is usually going to happen when they've read your submitted text and feel that it doesn't jive with the rating you attach to it. It's like saying "This game sucked... I give it 5 stars!" You're going to get a phone call asking what you're smoking and to please reconsider the score. If it's real close to publication date, the editor may have to make the adjustment himself. The only time I've ever seen a review score adjusted in what I call an "unjust" manner was when a certain editor (who I won't mention because I've never written for him) changed a score because he thought it was WAY out of line with what OTHER magazines were giving the game... a 2 when everyone else gave the game a 4.5 or better. Well, the writer got quite pissed and told him he couldn't change it, and the story was published INTACT at another site - with the 2 rating.
So, there's everybody's clue about what's "real" in the freelance game review writing arena.
Now, if you want to actually hang out in a forum with the majority of the magazine editors and the game writers, I'd suggest a trip over to http://www.quartertothree.com and head straight to the forums. You'll find everybody from the industry there.
Robotic mining is fine in an environment where you're mining things you really can't expose human workers to. However...
What's really more cost effective in the long run? These bad boys are going to cost a few million bucks each and the great majority of industrial robotics aren't subjected to the extreme environments that these auto-spelunkers would. How much is the total cost of ownership going to turn out to be, versus the cost of a crew of meat-constructed miners?
I think in the case of manual labor in a non dangerous environment that isn't robotically friendly (dirty, hot, wet...) you'll find that meat=cheap and steel=expensive.
I just don't understand what the fuss is all about... Puff Daddy has been ripping off good music and artists for years, then defacing it. Nobody's bitched about that.
I'm starting a new GNU project, if anybody wants in on it. It'll lay no-talent rap tracks over any MP3 on your computer and then spam it out. We're calling it Puffster.
On second thought... Perhaps I could make a buck by selling Puffster to the Record Corps. Yeah... it could scour the net looking for MP3's and do its dirty work. Maybe it could be embedded right into the music, kinda like exploding ink dyes in bank money. You steal it, it explodes into bad rap.
Not to say that such is the case here, but to just shoot a broad generality at you...
A lot of pharmaceutical companies are patenting various genetic items. These are useful in finding a cure for whatever condition... however, a pharmaceutical company would cut their own throat if they actually CURE anything. Why not patent the researchable material to discourage others from trying to cure what you profit from treating the symptoms of?
Obviously this doesn't so much apply to color blindedness. Hrm... maybe cancer though? How much Listerine would we sell if they cured gingivitis and halitosis? Yep, they're outta business.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh no, I admit that the companies sometimes make the attempt to threaten with advertising money when they don't like a review score. However, I'm just saying that in my experience that doesn't work too often.
As far as the "OMG EXCLUSIVE ++HOT!!" articles go... well, the cover article is *never* a review. It's always a preview, and always something that the magazine thinks will provide incentive to make an impulse purchase based on desire to have information about that "featured preview" product.
Sales and circulation figures are what is presented in the attempt to attract further advertising money... that's the lifeblood of the industry.
I do, however, feel weird when by "coincidence" a big glossy two-page ad for a game shows up right before its review in the magazine. However, sometimes that review is BAD, so while the company might pay for placement they're certainly not paying for an elevated score.
I don't think I've ever heard (and believe me, we're a chatty bunch) from another writer about being instructed to give something anything other than a fair objective score based on the merits of the software. So, if there's anything going on that's unjust then rest assured it's happening at the editorial level and NOT with the individual writers themselves.
Well, at least they don't cram a worthless cdrom down your throat and charge $9.00 instead of the normal $3.95 cover price. Every now and then I get the urge to pick up a magazine that I'm not subscribed to. That means searching the newstand for a non-cd edition of that magazine so I don't have to feel like I almost could have bought a game for the price of 30 minutes worth of reading. However, as time has passed it has become increasingly impossible to find a gaming magazine that doesn't try to justify doubling their marked cover price by giving me a cdrom full of stuff I could have downloaded for free if I'd had any interest in it.
:-)
I look at it this way... if I do want to download something at least the only people competing for bandwidth with me on gamespot are other paying subscribers. And, I'm not getting stiffed $4 for a cd I don't want
"The fact that they are losing money atleast means one good thing and is they aren't accepting money from publishers for good reviews."
Let me educate you about something...
I'm a game reviewer. While I haven't written for Gamespot, I know Greg Kasavin moderately well and know many of the people who write for him. Personally, I have experience with one magazine and two other websites. So, let me clue everybody in on how this works:
The subject of gaming publications getting funny money for knocking review scores up just isn't true. It's pure speculatory myth. Game magazines make money by selling space for those big glossy advertisements in their magazine... that's it. Also, most reputable ones don't even allow game companies to fly their writers out to the office to see game previews... usually this is done at the magazine's expense - to avoid looking like they're accepting favors and obliged to give preferential treatment.
So, they sell advertising space. In my personal experience, the one time that a company was very displeased with what I had to say in a review they did try to threaten the magazine about it - because they claimed that my accusations of the unfinished state of the game were unjust. However, my editor told them essientially "No, he's correct and we're running it as it stands." Their only means of sabre rattling was to threaten to pull advertising money out and not run their ads... well, who does that hurt worse? Them. Ok, so at that point the argument is over, the ads stayed and the review kept its score.
Occasionally there *is* a situation where an editor will adjust the score you turn in with your review. That is usually going to happen when they've read your submitted text and feel that it doesn't jive with the rating you attach to it. It's like saying "This game sucked... I give it 5 stars!" You're going to get a phone call asking what you're smoking and to please reconsider the score. If it's real close to publication date, the editor may have to make the adjustment himself. The only time I've ever seen a review score adjusted in what I call an "unjust" manner was when a certain editor (who I won't mention because I've never written for him) changed a score because he thought it was WAY out of line with what OTHER magazines were giving the game... a 2 when everyone else gave the game a 4.5 or better. Well, the writer got quite pissed and told him he couldn't change it, and the story was published INTACT at another site - with the 2 rating.
So, there's everybody's clue about what's "real" in the freelance game review writing arena.
Now, if you want to actually hang out in a forum with the majority of the magazine editors and the game writers, I'd suggest a trip over to http://www.quartertothree.com and head straight to the forums. You'll find everybody from the industry there.
Robotic mining is fine in an environment where you're mining things you really can't expose human workers to. However...
What's really more cost effective in the long run? These bad boys are going to cost a few million bucks each and the great majority of industrial robotics aren't subjected to the extreme environments that these auto-spelunkers would. How much is the total cost of ownership going to turn out to be, versus the cost of a crew of meat-constructed miners?
I think in the case of manual labor in a non dangerous environment that isn't robotically friendly (dirty, hot, wet...) you'll find that meat=cheap and steel=expensive.
I just don't understand what the fuss is all about... Puff Daddy has been ripping off good music and artists for years, then defacing it. Nobody's bitched about that.
I'm starting a new GNU project, if anybody wants in on it. It'll lay no-talent rap tracks over any MP3 on your computer and then spam it out. We're calling it Puffster.
On second thought... Perhaps I could make a buck by selling Puffster to the Record Corps. Yeah... it could scour the net looking for MP3's and do its dirty work. Maybe it could be embedded right into the music, kinda like exploding ink dyes in bank money. You steal it, it explodes into bad rap.
Not to say that such is the case here, but to just shoot a broad generality at you... A lot of pharmaceutical companies are patenting various genetic items. These are useful in finding a cure for whatever condition... however, a pharmaceutical company would cut their own throat if they actually CURE anything. Why not patent the researchable material to discourage others from trying to cure what you profit from treating the symptoms of? Obviously this doesn't so much apply to color blindedness. Hrm... maybe cancer though? How much Listerine would we sell if they cured gingivitis and halitosis? Yep, they're outta business.