Who's really to blame here? Eidos for demanding Gamespot change the review and fire the reviewer, or Gamespot for having no journalistic integrity ( or balls ) and cowering to Eidos?
I second that. If anything, Gamespot is to blame for bending over (IF the rumors are true). Mind you, there is no 100% proof that that single review caused the firing. it could have been coming for long time.
It doesn't surprise me at all. There is a huge conflict of interest with these sites takes taking their ad money , and then reviewing their games. I'm sure all the gaming companies put pressure on these sites.
I saw a post in this thread where the poster said eh waits for reviews and such before making an "investment" in a game.
Uhhhh what?
It's a game that will cost you $50 if you dont want the CE. $50 is not an investment. If I had bought Vanguard which I hear is doing bad, then I would have lost $50 but I would have atleast played the free month.
As for boycotting Eidos. I havent seen anything concrete about the reviewer situation and even if I did ... Age of Conan is a game I have been waiting for since 2005 ... I will still play it!
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
Sounds like the OP only heard one side of the story, you see reviewers dont get fired for giving their opinion on a game, there just HAS to be alot more at play than Eidos. Do you think that Gamespot would let go one of their best reviewers because Eidos said so? why would the give a flying shit about what Eidos thinks, they make money through advertisement, and they review games, its what they do.
Unless gamespot is owned by Eidos I would say you haven't heard the whole story about why the reviewer really got fired.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC -Playing WoW -Retired- SWG -Retired- EVE -Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled) - 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
Sounds like the OP only heard one side of the story, you see reviewers dont get fired for giving their opinion on a game, there just HAS to be alot more at play than Eidos. Do you think that Gamespot would let go one of their best reviewers because Eidos said so? why would the give a flying shit about what Eidos thinks, they make money through advertisement, and they review games, its what they do. Unless gamespot is owned by Eidos I would say you haven't heard the whole story about why the reviewer really got fired.
I agree. I could give a _ _ _ _ about what a reviewer says about a game.. my opinion alone is the only one I listen to. I have never been a lemming and to give a <bleep> about a reviewer that doesn't care about you is pointless... My ass doesn't bleed for that guy, nor his for you.. believe in that.
People really should learn to start thinking and making decisions for themselves..
i think the reviewer got canned because he talking about an advertiser and not the game, even if it was a side comment, it pretty much says it that he stepped over a line.
I mean you can bash a company, or a game, but dont bash the people feeding your parent company. The ads.
Btw the over drama about, if you let X fire a reviewer are dooming the gaming industry. Is utter nonsense, its like a food critice getting fired will doom the restaurant industry or something. Not going to happen.
also freedom of speech only protects you from being prosicuded for saying something, not fired.
This story is 100% true. Anyone who does not believe this obviously wasn't watching this as it unfolded a few months back. In a single day thousands of accounts were cancelled on Gamespot, and even half of the mods there turned on the staff and many of them quit. Gamespot is owned by CNET, who put the pressure on GS to fire one of their most senior reviewers / editors for the review. Gamespot had to come out and do round after round of damage control to try to stop the bleeding of accounts being cancelled. Eidos is shameful company that has participated in unethical business practices. Whether or not this influences your decision to buy this game is up to you.
This story is 100% true. Anyone who does not believe this obviously wasn't watching this as it unfolded a few months back. In a single day thousands of accounts were cancelled on Gamespot, and even half of the mods there turned on the staff and many of them quit. Gamespot is owned by CNET, who put the pressure on GS to fire one of their most senior reviewers / editors for the review. Gamespot had to come out and do round after round of damage control to try to stop the bleeding of accounts being cancelled. Eidos is shameful company that has participated in unethical business practices. Whether or not this influences your decision to buy this game is up to you.
This is totally fucked up if its any truth in it!!
They more or less dictates whats acceptable and what isnt?? The reviewers have to adapt to a game companies needs?? How can we the buyers then ever believe in what we read about a game is a neutral reviewer describing his mind on the game? And its not just that game, the review is also a comparison to other competing games from other companies. How retarded isnt that. So much for the rights of free speach.
Last time i entered Gamespot or bought a Eidos game!!
Well in all reality you for people who look to reviews for games should pick a bias reviewer. If a game company is sponsoring a game review site then 9 times out of 10 that reviewer will have to make the review a good one for a A list game the developer or publisher deems is one. Thats why games have demos and exc. And you can always wait a few months and a review of the game who owns it will let you know as well what he thinks about the game. Do i think that guy should of been fired because of this ( if this is a truth, there is always two sides and I've only heard one) No he was honest, but this is a business and if you mess with there business like the reviewer did you get canned. I wouldn't fund a review site that said my game sucked sorry i wouldnt and he should of known better.
Yeah... none of this is true. I don't know where you got your 9 our of 10 figure.
Speaking as someone who works in games journalism, I can tell you that is is much less common for advertisers to have any say whatsoever about what content goes on a site. That's why it's so shocking when these events occur. Smart websites and magazines keep their content and editorial staff as far away from the advertising end of things as possible.
I'll put it to you this way: Is it really worth losing your credibility with your audience over a single sponsor? There are lots of sponsors / advertisers out there, you only get one reputation. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the whole picture here.
Well in all reality you for people who look to reviews for games should pick a bias reviewer. If a game company is sponsoring a game review site then 9 times out of 10 that reviewer will have to make the review a good one for a A list game the developer or publisher deems is one. Thats why games have demos and exc. And you can always wait a few months and a review of the game who owns it will let you know as well what he thinks about the game. Do i think that guy should of been fired because of this ( if this is a truth, there is always two sides and I've only heard one) No he was honest, but this is a business and if you mess with there business like the reviewer did you get canned. I wouldn't fund a review site that said my game sucked sorry i wouldnt and he should of known better.
Yeah... none of this is true. I don't know where you got your 9 our of 10 figure.
Speaking as someone who works in games journalism, I can tell you that is is much less common for advertisers to have any say whatsoever about what content goes on a site. That's why it's so shocking when these events occur. Smart websites and magazines keep their content and editorial staff as far away from the advertising end of things as possible.
I'll put it to you this way: Is it really worth losing your credibility with your audience over a single sponsor? There are lots of sponsors / advertisers out there, you only get one reputation. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the whole picture here.
The funny thing about Gamespot is that their credibility in regards to reviews has always been in question. I always found that the reader reviews were a much more accurate representation of the truth behind a game.
I'm a big fan of the Nintendo Wii, and as someone who frequents the forums on Gamespot, I have read my fair share of reviews there. One review in particular literally made me throw my hands up in disgust at how completely retarded some of their review staff was before this incident. The game being reviewed was Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn for the wii.
This is a Final Fantasy tactics type strat RPG. They gave this game a 6.0 out of 10. Why? Because it didn't have online and it didn't support the use of the Mii's. Why the hell in god's name would a 40+ hour console RPG lose points for not being online? And Mii support is almost just as stupid. Every character in the RPG has a massive backstory, so how did this silly bastard think your Mii had a legitimate place in the story?! For a while it seemed that if a game wasn't made by Microsoft or rhymed with Gaylo, it was minus points.
They didn't need a scandal to make them look not credible, but it certainly didn't help their situation. Keep in mind that 6.0 they gave that game was about the same score they gave to Vanguard, Saga of Heroes, a game that barely even worked!
Well in all reality you for people who look to reviews for games should pick a bias reviewer. If a game company is sponsoring a game review site then 9 times out of 10 that reviewer will have to make the review a good one for a A list game the developer or publisher deems is one. Thats why games have demos and exc. And you can always wait a few months and a review of the game who owns it will let you know as well what he thinks about the game. Do i think that guy should of been fired because of this ( if this is a truth, there is always two sides and I've only heard one) No he was honest, but this is a business and if you mess with there business like the reviewer did you get canned. I wouldn't fund a review site that said my game sucked sorry i wouldnt and he should of known better.
Yeah... none of this is true. I don't know where you got your 9 our of 10 figure.
Speaking as someone who works in games journalism, I can tell you that is is much less common for advertisers to have any say whatsoever about what content goes on a site. That's why it's so shocking when these events occur. Smart websites and magazines keep their content and editorial staff as far away from the advertising end of things as possible.
I'll put it to you this way: Is it really worth losing your credibility with your audience over a single sponsor? There are lots of sponsors / advertisers out there, you only get one reputation. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the whole picture here.
Yeah and most game reviewers know not to bash a game that sucks until someone else does. Especially when the advertiser is a Big company like Edios. Most reviews arn't spot on and I stand by my statement. Yeah it might not be 9 out of 10 but its close to it. And to say this site doesn't do the same is saying none of the advertisers care what you say, because if they did you would rephase your article and keep the money flowing because this site needs money just like the other ones. And without the money the site goes away. Its a business and people need to stop putting so much faith into game reviewers because the people making the games pay the reviewers so yeah thats why i believe what i think and nothing you can say will change that thought.
Yeah and most game reviewers know not to bash a game that sucks until someone else does. Especially when the advertiser is a Big company like Edios. Most reviews arn't spot on and I stand by my statement. Yeah it might not be 9 out of 10 but its close to it. And to say this site doesn't do the same is saying none of the advertisers care what you say, because if they did you would rephase your article and keep the money flowing because this site needs money just like the other ones. And without the money the site goes away. Its a business and people need to stop putting so much faith into game reviewers because the people making the games pay the reviewers so yeah thats why i believe what i think and nothing you can say will change that thought.
Actually, As far as this site goes, we have never changed a review at the request of the game company and I don't see it happening any time soon. While, as you point out, there may be some short trem gain to be had by doing this, the long term damage would be far worse. No point in protecting advertisers for a site no one visits. Make no mistake, the only reason that any company chooses to advertise on a website is to harness their traffic. If traffic suffers, business across the board suffers. It's much wiser to take the individual hit with an advertiser than to take the overall hit with your audience.
Now, with that said, I want to say that I'm not telling you that you have to take every reviewer's word on the review. I've always felt that reviews were supposed to be presented as the author's opinion. If it's well laid out and well written, you should be able to take their impressions and see what applies to you and decide how you might feel. Usually backed up by a trial or something.
So yes, it's a business. No arguement here, I'm just saying that it's bad business to be as corrupt as you accuse the industry of being. I would also like to point out that a huge percentage of companies that the press deals with would never even consider asking for a review to be changed, much less threaten to pull advertising over it.
Actually, As far as this site goes, we have never changed a review at the request of the game company and I don't see it happening any time soon. While, as you point out, there may be some short trem gain to be had by doing this, the long term damage would be far worse. No point in protecting advertisers for a site no one visits. Make no mistake, the only reason that any company chooses to advertise on a website is to harness their traffic. If traffic suffers, business across the board suffers. It's much wiser to take the individual hit with an advertiser than to take the overall hit with your audience.
Now, with that said, I want to say that I'm not telling you that you have to take every reviewer's word on the review. I've always felt that reviews were supposed to be presented as the author's opinion. If it's well laid out and well written, you should be able to take their impressions and see what applies to you and decide how you might feel. Usually backed up by a trial or something.
So yes, it's a business. No arguement here, I'm just saying that it's bad business to be as corrupt as you accuse the industry of being. I would also like to point out that 99% of companies that the press deals with would never even consider asking for a review to be changed, much less threaten to pull advertising over it.
Well they were caught is the only reason people know about it. Had they not been caught people would still have same faith in gamespot that they still do. I haven't heard of any traffic decrease to there site even after they were caught. So to presume that people won't goto your site over a bad rep on a review is ludacris. I goto the sites for previews myself. Like i said reviews are opinions of that player and rarely reflect my opinion of a game. Alot of games that get good reviews Assassins Creed for one should all be fired for saying this game desevered anything over a 4 out of 10.
Yeah, let's make innocent, hard-working (because if you think it's the managers that will suffer, you're smoking something...) Funcom employees suffer because of something their co-publisher may or may not have done (prove it, go on 100%, I mean PROOF), when that co-publishing deal was signed long before the suspected infraction.
There's a time and place to make your stand, and yeah, it seems something dirty went down, but you have to a cold person to punish someone else for it.
Eidos will release plenty of games that their own companies developed, make your little protest then.
All right. I've said what I had to say. Take it for what it's worth.
Stradden,
I think most of us understand what it is you are trying to say. It is just a shame he does not get it.
Maybe I can break it down for him in less perfect form, maybe he will get it if I type realllly slow.
Ok, What Stradden was attempting to get across was this:
Game sites/magazines make money from the advertisements and the companies that invest in them.
BUT
They can only generate profit if they have the traffic or readers to see the advertisements.
The point is not the reviews, or the companies themselves, the discussion was about a reviewer being fired for giving a bad review.
This incident could and more than likely did have consequences. If a company pulls a string and fires a site employee for giving a review that was not favorable to them. This in turn pisses off alot of viewers and not only hurts the site but the company as well. Traffic doesn't flow as well to a site that has pissed off viewers because they won't come there to view anything.
OK
So what Stradden was saying is that sites such as this one, gamespot, gameinformer, PCgaming monthly and so on, HARDLY EVER if EVER do this. It is detrimental to business. That it is better to cut ties with that company asking you to do such a thing, than it is to listen to them and potentially lose customers (your traffic).
Who really cares what score gamespot gives any game. Smart gamers just look at a review, take from it what affects them only, and then decide to try the game and keep it or not.
Take a deep breath Stradden most of us understand your point.
Ok so if this is all true than that is too bad, and of course it isn't fair, but will something like this stop me from buying AoC? Absolutely not. Eidos is just the publishing company and I am paying to play a game that i may or may not enjoy and if i dont enjoy it I will quit, I could care less who makes the game as long as the game delivers, and satisfies me its all that I care about.
No developing company out there is an angel, they all do shady stuff, after all its all about making money and alot of stuff goes on behind the scenes that alot of us may not agree with. I think its silly to condemn a game that could be great and alot of fun because of something like this.
Lets not forget though that this game is made by Funcom not Eidos, Eidos is simply funding it.
I hate EA because they release games that alot of the times are rushed and arent quality, so does that mean I wont buy Bioware games anymore? Of course not I love Bioware and they have always delivered with their games, and even though they got bought out by EA I'll still buy Bioware games.
Just my thought.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC -Playing WoW -Retired- SWG -Retired- EVE -Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled) - 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
All right. I've said what I had to say. Take it for what it's worth.
Stradden,
I think most of us understand what it is you are trying to say. It is just a shame he does not get it.
Maybe I can break it down for him in less perfect form, maybe he will get it if I type realllly slow.
Ok, What Stradden was attempting to get across was this:
Game sites/magazines make money from the advertisements and the companies that invest in them.
BUT
They can only generate profit if they have the traffic or readers to see the advertisements.
The point is not the reviews, or the companies themselves, the discussion was about a reviewer being fired for giving a bad review.
This incident could and more than likely did have consequences. If a company pulls a string and fires a site employee for giving a review that was not favorable to them. This in turn pisses off alot of viewers and not only hurts the site but the company as well. Traffic doesn't flow as well to a site that has pissed off viewers because they won't come there to view anything.
OK
So what Stradden was saying is that sites such as this one, gamespot, gameinformer, PCgaming monthly and so on, HARDLY EVER if EVER do this. It is detrimental to business. That it is better to cut ties with that company asking you to do such a thing, than it is to listen to them and potentially lose customers (your traffic).
Who really cares what score gamespot gives any game. Smart gamers just look at a review, take from it what affects them only, and then decide to try the game and keep it or not.
Take a deep breath Stradden most of us understand your point.
WoW ill help you out since i must have been typing fast
Sites do make there money by ADVERTISERS and there visits.
So if a ADVERTISER doesn't pay the site, the site goes bye bye
So the site needs its ADVERTISERS more then its viewers.
yes there is a equilibrium but in the end the site wants to stay alive.
If firing a reviewer because of a review will help fund the site
It will be done. Yeah i understand what straddon is saying But I also understand business
That is what you need to realize. I do and a accept it.
Now, with that said, I want to say that I'm not telling you that you have to take every reviewer's word on the review. I've always felt that reviews were supposed to be presented as the author's opinion. If it's well laid out and well written, you should be able to take their impressions and see what applies to you and decide how you might feel. Usually backed up by a trial or something.
So yes, it's a business. No arguement here, I'm just saying that it's bad business to be as corrupt as you accuse the industry of being. I would also like to point out that a huge percentage of companies that the press deals with would never even consider asking for a review to be changed, much less threaten to pull advertising over it.
That attitude is probably one of the main reasons this site has been as successful as it has been. In the past before this site was around or known to me, I had visited a lot of other sites with discussion boards for various games. Those sites were often heavy handed with moderation when an objective criticism was leveled against the games features there.
I do agree, I do not think it is as wide spread as some conspiracy theorists would claim. I think it might have been you yourself who one time joked about the prospect of a company attempting to tamper with reviews on this site and how it would be the best thing to happen to the sites traffic because of how much buzz it would generate when you out them for being scumbags
Your credibility is all you have to hinge your business on when running a site like this one. Appeasing an advertiser might help the short term revenue, but the long term loss of traffic from losing your credibility would be devastating as Gamespot found the hard way when all this happened.
That attitude is probably one of the main reasons this site has been as successful as it has been. In the past before this site was around or known to me, I had visited a lot of other sites with discussion boards for various games. Those sites were often heavy handed with moderation when an objective criticism was leveled against the games features there. I do agree, I do not think it is as wide spread as some conspiracy theorists would claim. I think it might have been you yourself who one time joked about the prospect of a company attempting to tamper with reviews on this site and how it would be the best thing to happen to the sites traffic because of how much buzz it would generate when you out them for being scumbags Your credibility is all you have to hinge your business on when running a site like this one. Appeasing an advertiser might help the short term revenue, but the long term loss of traffic from losing your credibility would be devastating as Gamespot found the hard way when all this happened.
But without advertisers it doesn't matter how much traffic you have because you wont have a site.
All right. I've said what I had to say. Take it for what it's worth.
Stradden,
I think most of us understand what it is you are trying to say. It is just a shame he does not get it.
Maybe I can break it down for him in less perfect form, maybe he will get it if I type realllly slow.
Ok, What Stradden was attempting to get across was this:
Game sites/magazines make money from the advertisements and the companies that invest in them.
BUT
They can only generate profit if they have the traffic or readers to see the advertisements.
The point is not the reviews, or the companies themselves, the discussion was about a reviewer being fired for giving a bad review.
This incident could and more than likely did have consequences. If a company pulls a string and fires a site employee for giving a review that was not favorable to them. This in turn pisses off alot of viewers and not only hurts the site but the company as well. Traffic doesn't flow as well to a site that has pissed off viewers because they won't come there to view anything.
OK
So what Stradden was saying is that sites such as this one, gamespot, gameinformer, PCgaming monthly and so on, HARDLY EVER if EVER do this. It is detrimental to business. That it is better to cut ties with that company asking you to do such a thing, than it is to listen to them and potentially lose customers (your traffic).
Who really cares what score gamespot gives any game. Smart gamers just look at a review, take from it what affects them only, and then decide to try the game and keep it or not.
Take a deep breath Stradden most of us understand your point.
WoW ill help you out since i must have been typing fast
Sites do make there money by ADVERTISERS and there visits.
So if a ADVERTISER doesn't pay the site, the site goes bye bye
The site ONLY goes bye bye from no viewers not the advertisements. Noone around to see your advertisements, how much money you think that brings in? Sites can always find 5 or 6 companies to advertise... they can't replace 500,000 viewers.
So the site needs its ADVERTISERS more then its viewers.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read....
yes there is a equilibrium but in the end the site wants to stay alive.
Site only survives off of the people who frequent it. Who is going to advertise on a site NOONE comes to?
If firing a reviewer because of a review will help fund the site
It will be done.
This is horrible business mindset and this is what the entire thread was about.
Yeah i understand what straddon is saying But I also understand business
I honestly do not believe you understand either....
That is what you need to realize. I do and a accept it.
You can accept it... but it is wrong.
That was not what stradden was saying.
He was saying that you do NOT fire a reviewer for a company and it's advertisements.
You let the company go and stop hosting their advertisements so that this kind of thing that happened at gamespot does not happen. You never want to lose viewers because you did something wrong (fire an employee for the greed of a company) over advertisements.
Advertisements come a plenty.... viewers once scorned are gone forever.... Don't believe me. Head over to the SWG vet forums, they will be happy to explain a viewer/user rebellion for you.
I will type it extremely slow next time if you continue to not understand what is being said here.
I will use this format.
S o y o u g e t i t a n d u n d e r s t a n d e v e r y t h i n g? O K?
Comments
I second that. If anything, Gamespot is to blame for bending over (IF the rumors are true). Mind you, there is no 100% proof that that single review caused the firing. it could have been coming for long time.
I am the type of player where I like to do everything and anything from time to time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor - pre-WW2 genocide.
It doesn't surprise me at all. There is a huge conflict of interest with these sites takes taking their ad money , and then reviewing their games. I'm sure all the gaming companies put pressure on these sites.
So I don't think this has anything to do with AOC
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
I saw a post in this thread where the poster said eh waits for reviews and such before making an "investment" in a game.
Uhhhh what?
It's a game that will cost you $50 if you dont want the CE. $50 is not an investment. If I had bought Vanguard which I hear is doing bad, then I would have lost $50 but I would have atleast played the free month.
As for boycotting Eidos. I havent seen anything concrete about the reviewer situation and even if I did ... Age of Conan is a game I have been waiting for since 2005 ... I will still play it!
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
Sounds like the OP only heard one side of the story, you see reviewers dont get fired for giving their opinion on a game, there just HAS to be alot more at play than Eidos. Do you think that Gamespot would let go one of their best reviewers because Eidos said so? why would the give a flying shit about what Eidos thinks, they make money through advertisement, and they review games, its what they do.
Unless gamespot is owned by Eidos I would say you haven't heard the whole story about why the reviewer really got fired.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC
-Playing WoW
-Retired- SWG
-Retired- EVE
-Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled)
- 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
I agree. I could give a _ _ _ _ about what a reviewer says about a game.. my opinion alone is the only one I listen to. I have never been a lemming and to give a <bleep> about a reviewer that doesn't care about you is pointless... My ass doesn't bleed for that guy, nor his for you.. believe in that.
People really should learn to start thinking and making decisions for themselves..
i think the reviewer got canned because he talking about an advertiser and not the game, even if it was a side comment, it pretty much says it that he stepped over a line.
I mean you can bash a company, or a game, but dont bash the people feeding your parent company. The ads.
Btw the over drama about, if you let X fire a reviewer are dooming the gaming industry. Is utter nonsense, its like a food critice getting fired will doom the restaurant industry or something. Not going to happen.
also freedom of speech only protects you from being prosicuded for saying something, not fired.
This story is 100% true. Anyone who does not believe this obviously wasn't watching this as it unfolded a few months back. In a single day thousands of accounts were cancelled on Gamespot, and even half of the mods there turned on the staff and many of them quit. Gamespot is owned by CNET, who put the pressure on GS to fire one of their most senior reviewers / editors for the review. Gamespot had to come out and do round after round of damage control to try to stop the bleeding of accounts being cancelled. Eidos is shameful company that has participated in unethical business practices. Whether or not this influences your decision to buy this game is up to you.
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
This is totally fucked up if its any truth in it!!
They more or less dictates whats acceptable and what isnt?? The reviewers have to adapt to a game companies needs?? How can we the buyers then ever believe in what we read about a game is a neutral reviewer describing his mind on the game? And its not just that game, the review is also a comparison to other competing games from other companies. How retarded isnt that. So much for the rights of free speach.
Last time i entered Gamespot or bought a Eidos game!!
Speaking as someone who works in games journalism, I can tell you that is is much less common for advertisers to have any say whatsoever about what content goes on a site. That's why it's so shocking when these events occur. Smart websites and magazines keep their content and editorial staff as far away from the advertising end of things as possible.
I'll put it to you this way: Is it really worth losing your credibility with your audience over a single sponsor? There are lots of sponsors / advertisers out there, you only get one reputation. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the whole picture here.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Speaking as someone who works in games journalism, I can tell you that is is much less common for advertisers to have any say whatsoever about what content goes on a site. That's why it's so shocking when these events occur. Smart websites and magazines keep their content and editorial staff as far away from the advertising end of things as possible.
I'll put it to you this way: Is it really worth losing your credibility with your audience over a single sponsor? There are lots of sponsors / advertisers out there, you only get one reputation. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the whole picture here.
The funny thing about Gamespot is that their credibility in regards to reviews has always been in question. I always found that the reader reviews were a much more accurate representation of the truth behind a game.
I'm a big fan of the Nintendo Wii, and as someone who frequents the forums on Gamespot, I have read my fair share of reviews there. One review in particular literally made me throw my hands up in disgust at how completely retarded some of their review staff was before this incident. The game being reviewed was Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn for the wii.
This is a Final Fantasy tactics type strat RPG. They gave this game a 6.0 out of 10. Why? Because it didn't have online and it didn't support the use of the Mii's. Why the hell in god's name would a 40+ hour console RPG lose points for not being online? And Mii support is almost just as stupid. Every character in the RPG has a massive backstory, so how did this silly bastard think your Mii had a legitimate place in the story?! For a while it seemed that if a game wasn't made by Microsoft or rhymed with Gaylo, it was minus points.
They didn't need a scandal to make them look not credible, but it certainly didn't help their situation. Keep in mind that 6.0 they gave that game was about the same score they gave to Vanguard, Saga of Heroes, a game that barely even worked!
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
Speaking as someone who works in games journalism, I can tell you that is is much less common for advertisers to have any say whatsoever about what content goes on a site. That's why it's so shocking when these events occur. Smart websites and magazines keep their content and editorial staff as far away from the advertising end of things as possible.
I'll put it to you this way: Is it really worth losing your credibility with your audience over a single sponsor? There are lots of sponsors / advertisers out there, you only get one reputation. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the whole picture here.
Yeah and most game reviewers know not to bash a game that sucks until someone else does. Especially when the advertiser is a Big company like Edios. Most reviews arn't spot on and I stand by my statement. Yeah it might not be 9 out of 10 but its close to it. And to say this site doesn't do the same is saying none of the advertisers care what you say, because if they did you would rephase your article and keep the money flowing because this site needs money just like the other ones. And without the money the site goes away. Its a business and people need to stop putting so much faith into game reviewers because the people making the games pay the reviewers so yeah thats why i believe what i think and nothing you can say will change that thought.
Yeah and most game reviewers know not to bash a game that sucks until someone else does. Especially when the advertiser is a Big company like Edios. Most reviews arn't spot on and I stand by my statement. Yeah it might not be 9 out of 10 but its close to it. And to say this site doesn't do the same is saying none of the advertisers care what you say, because if they did you would rephase your article and keep the money flowing because this site needs money just like the other ones. And without the money the site goes away. Its a business and people need to stop putting so much faith into game reviewers because the people making the games pay the reviewers so yeah thats why i believe what i think and nothing you can say will change that thought.Actually, As far as this site goes, we have never changed a review at the request of the game company and I don't see it happening any time soon. While, as you point out, there may be some short trem gain to be had by doing this, the long term damage would be far worse. No point in protecting advertisers for a site no one visits. Make no mistake, the only reason that any company chooses to advertise on a website is to harness their traffic. If traffic suffers, business across the board suffers. It's much wiser to take the individual hit with an advertiser than to take the overall hit with your audience.
Now, with that said, I want to say that I'm not telling you that you have to take every reviewer's word on the review. I've always felt that reviews were supposed to be presented as the author's opinion. If it's well laid out and well written, you should be able to take their impressions and see what applies to you and decide how you might feel. Usually backed up by a trial or something.
So yes, it's a business. No arguement here, I'm just saying that it's bad business to be as corrupt as you accuse the industry of being. I would also like to point out that a huge percentage of companies that the press deals with would never even consider asking for a review to be changed, much less threaten to pull advertising over it.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Ok.
Well they were caught is the only reason people know about it. Had they not been caught people would still have same faith in gamespot that they still do. I haven't heard of any traffic decrease to there site even after they were caught. So to presume that people won't goto your site over a bad rep on a review is ludacris. I goto the sites for previews myself. Like i said reviews are opinions of that player and rarely reflect my opinion of a game. Alot of games that get good reviews Assassins Creed for one should all be fired for saying this game desevered anything over a 4 out of 10.
All right. I've said what I had to say. Take it for what it's worth.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
All right as did I. I said what i had to aswell. Hope the gamers will take it for what it was worth too.
Yeah, let's make innocent, hard-working (because if you think it's the managers that will suffer, you're smoking something...) Funcom employees suffer because of something their co-publisher may or may not have done (prove it, go on 100%, I mean PROOF), when that co-publishing deal was signed long before the suspected infraction.
There's a time and place to make your stand, and yeah, it seems something dirty went down, but you have to a cold person to punish someone else for it.
Eidos will release plenty of games that their own companies developed, make your little protest then.
Stradden,
I think most of us understand what it is you are trying to say. It is just a shame he does not get it.
Maybe I can break it down for him in less perfect form, maybe he will get it if I type realllly slow.
Ok, What Stradden was attempting to get across was this:
Game sites/magazines make money from the advertisements and the companies that invest in them.
BUT
They can only generate profit if they have the traffic or readers to see the advertisements.
The point is not the reviews, or the companies themselves, the discussion was about a reviewer being fired for giving a bad review.
This incident could and more than likely did have consequences. If a company pulls a string and fires a site employee for giving a review that was not favorable to them. This in turn pisses off alot of viewers and not only hurts the site but the company as well. Traffic doesn't flow as well to a site that has pissed off viewers because they won't come there to view anything.
OK
So what Stradden was saying is that sites such as this one, gamespot, gameinformer, PCgaming monthly and so on, HARDLY EVER if EVER do this. It is detrimental to business. That it is better to cut ties with that company asking you to do such a thing, than it is to listen to them and potentially lose customers (your traffic).
Who really cares what score gamespot gives any game. Smart gamers just look at a review, take from it what affects them only, and then decide to try the game and keep it or not.
Take a deep breath Stradden most of us understand your point.
Ok so if this is all true than that is too bad, and of course it isn't fair, but will something like this stop me from buying AoC? Absolutely not. Eidos is just the publishing company and I am paying to play a game that i may or may not enjoy and if i dont enjoy it I will quit, I could care less who makes the game as long as the game delivers, and satisfies me its all that I care about.
No developing company out there is an angel, they all do shady stuff, after all its all about making money and alot of stuff goes on behind the scenes that alot of us may not agree with. I think its silly to condemn a game that could be great and alot of fun because of something like this.
Lets not forget though that this game is made by Funcom not Eidos, Eidos is simply funding it.
I hate EA because they release games that alot of the times are rushed and arent quality, so does that mean I wont buy Bioware games anymore? Of course not I love Bioware and they have always delivered with their games, and even though they got bought out by EA I'll still buy Bioware games.
Just my thought.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC
-Playing WoW
-Retired- SWG
-Retired- EVE
-Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled)
- 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
Stradden,
I think most of us understand what it is you are trying to say. It is just a shame he does not get it.
Maybe I can break it down for him in less perfect form, maybe he will get it if I type realllly slow.
Ok, What Stradden was attempting to get across was this:
Game sites/magazines make money from the advertisements and the companies that invest in them.
BUT
They can only generate profit if they have the traffic or readers to see the advertisements.
The point is not the reviews, or the companies themselves, the discussion was about a reviewer being fired for giving a bad review.
This incident could and more than likely did have consequences. If a company pulls a string and fires a site employee for giving a review that was not favorable to them. This in turn pisses off alot of viewers and not only hurts the site but the company as well. Traffic doesn't flow as well to a site that has pissed off viewers because they won't come there to view anything.
OK
So what Stradden was saying is that sites such as this one, gamespot, gameinformer, PCgaming monthly and so on, HARDLY EVER if EVER do this. It is detrimental to business. That it is better to cut ties with that company asking you to do such a thing, than it is to listen to them and potentially lose customers (your traffic).
Who really cares what score gamespot gives any game. Smart gamers just look at a review, take from it what affects them only, and then decide to try the game and keep it or not.
Take a deep breath Stradden most of us understand your point.
WoW ill help you out since i must have been typing fastSites do make there money by ADVERTISERS and there visits.
So if a ADVERTISER doesn't pay the site, the site goes bye bye
So the site needs its ADVERTISERS more then its viewers.
yes there is a equilibrium but in the end the site wants to stay alive.
If firing a reviewer because of a review will help fund the site
It will be done. Yeah i understand what straddon is saying But I also understand business
That is what you need to realize. I do and a accept it.
None of this will matter AT ALL if Age of Conan turns out to be great.
Now, with that said, I want to say that I'm not telling you that you have to take every reviewer's word on the review. I've always felt that reviews were supposed to be presented as the author's opinion. If it's well laid out and well written, you should be able to take their impressions and see what applies to you and decide how you might feel. Usually backed up by a trial or something.
So yes, it's a business. No arguement here, I'm just saying that it's bad business to be as corrupt as you accuse the industry of being. I would also like to point out that a huge percentage of companies that the press deals with would never even consider asking for a review to be changed, much less threaten to pull advertising over it.
That attitude is probably one of the main reasons this site has been as successful as it has been. In the past before this site was around or known to me, I had visited a lot of other sites with discussion boards for various games. Those sites were often heavy handed with moderation when an objective criticism was leveled against the games features there.
I do agree, I do not think it is as wide spread as some conspiracy theorists would claim. I think it might have been you yourself who one time joked about the prospect of a company attempting to tamper with reviews on this site and how it would be the best thing to happen to the sites traffic because of how much buzz it would generate when you out them for being scumbags
Your credibility is all you have to hinge your business on when running a site like this one. Appeasing an advertiser might help the short term revenue, but the long term loss of traffic from losing your credibility would be devastating as Gamespot found the hard way when all this happened.
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
But without advertisers it doesn't matter how much traffic you have because you wont have a site.
Stradden,
I think most of us understand what it is you are trying to say. It is just a shame he does not get it.
Maybe I can break it down for him in less perfect form, maybe he will get it if I type realllly slow.
Ok, What Stradden was attempting to get across was this:
Game sites/magazines make money from the advertisements and the companies that invest in them.
BUT
They can only generate profit if they have the traffic or readers to see the advertisements.
The point is not the reviews, or the companies themselves, the discussion was about a reviewer being fired for giving a bad review.
This incident could and more than likely did have consequences. If a company pulls a string and fires a site employee for giving a review that was not favorable to them. This in turn pisses off alot of viewers and not only hurts the site but the company as well. Traffic doesn't flow as well to a site that has pissed off viewers because they won't come there to view anything.
OK
So what Stradden was saying is that sites such as this one, gamespot, gameinformer, PCgaming monthly and so on, HARDLY EVER if EVER do this. It is detrimental to business. That it is better to cut ties with that company asking you to do such a thing, than it is to listen to them and potentially lose customers (your traffic).
Who really cares what score gamespot gives any game. Smart gamers just look at a review, take from it what affects them only, and then decide to try the game and keep it or not.
Take a deep breath Stradden most of us understand your point.
WoW ill help you out since i must have been typing fastSites do make there money by ADVERTISERS and there visits.
So if a ADVERTISER doesn't pay the site, the site goes bye bye
The site ONLY goes bye bye from no viewers not the advertisements. Noone around to see your advertisements, how much money you think that brings in? Sites can always find 5 or 6 companies to advertise... they can't replace 500,000 viewers.
So the site needs its ADVERTISERS more then its viewers.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read....
yes there is a equilibrium but in the end the site wants to stay alive.
Site only survives off of the people who frequent it. Who is going to advertise on a site NOONE comes to?
If firing a reviewer because of a review will help fund the site
It will be done.
This is horrible business mindset and this is what the entire thread was about.
Yeah i understand what straddon is saying But I also understand business
I honestly do not believe you understand either....
That is what you need to realize. I do and a accept it.
You can accept it... but it is wrong.
That was not what stradden was saying.
He was saying that you do NOT fire a reviewer for a company and it's advertisements.
You let the company go and stop hosting their advertisements so that this kind of thing that happened at gamespot does not happen. You never want to lose viewers because you did something wrong (fire an employee for the greed of a company) over advertisements.
Advertisements come a plenty.... viewers once scorned are gone forever.... Don't believe me. Head over to the SWG vet forums, they will be happy to explain a viewer/user rebellion for you.
I will type it extremely slow next time if you continue to not understand what is being said here.
I will use this format.
S o y o u g e t i t a n d u n d e r s t a n d e v e r y t h i n g? O K?