I think if you want to see the paid for reviews. Go to meta critic and see the sites you've never heard of that give perfect scores to games scoring well below that.
Movie studios do it there's been exposes about how movie trailers will quote reviews from publications that either don't exist or no one has ever heard of. I'm sure some video game developers/publishers do it too.
But I can tell you, while I don't know Bill Murphy personally I have interacted with him a lot on Facebook, Twitter and in some games. He's really genuine and actually enjoys MMORPGs. I truly believe him when he says reviews are in no way paid for on this site.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there was some bit of a "scandal" when they gave a less than favorable review to a game which advertised on the site. But the owners stood up for the staff and backed their freedom to write the review how they wanted.
I could be wrong but I remember seeing that or something similar.
F2P - the cancer that killed MMORPGs! And before the "they make more money" kids jump in, they may make more, but I call that milking the saps. Overpriced shops & toxic players... you get what you pay for... welcome to Hell.
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
Well reviewers paid by devs ,we wouldn't know anyhow,it is the other entities that pay reviewers that worries us.Many times it is just downright obvious like said review of an older game followed by an advert the next day.
Subs versus free to play is a no-brainer,there is no such thing as free to play and most know it.It then becomes a known entity versus the unknown and most certainly the known is always a better option.
I am talking of course ONLY of the monetary side of things,it still comes down to development and cost versus profit expectations that determine a quality game and that varies from one dev to another.It is simply like your wage,would a person or family that is tight on budget be able to run their lives properly if their wage was unpredictable?Well sure they could if it we are talking EXPECTED super large numbers but not so if say working one week for 700 then 3 straight weeks for 500 a week.
To me and i don't care what BS any dev tries to feed me,it is simply a case that they CAN'T go sub because their product is not good enough to compete in a sub based atmosphere.
How many times have we seen devs or adverts telling us how many players a game has,a TON of times,why not tell us about your game instead of numbers,obviously their is nothing amazing to talk about so numbers it is.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Can you give us some examples on this site of poor games that were sugarcoated reviews?
I am yet to see one example.
Every suck game got suck scores here - there were games that scored too high (like Wildstar) - but there was hardly any sugarcoating - the reviewer liked quest themeparks and scored it high - I personally am done with that so my bias would score WS a lot lower.
But that is not sugar coating - that is preference, and you can tell a difference when a review is selling you BS.
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Can you give us some examples on this site of poor games that were sugarcoated reviews?
I am yet to see one example.
Every suck game got suck scores here - there were games that scored too high (like Wildstar) - but there was hardly any sugarcoating - the reviewer liked quest themeparks and scored it high - I personally am done with that so my bias would score WS a lot lower.
But that is not sugar coating - that is preference, and you can tell a difference when a review is selling you BS.
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
Generally the expectation is that when a person brings up a factoid, they have something to back it up with. Sending the people who you are trying to convince to look up your facts for you is poor form.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Can you give us some examples on this site of poor games that were sugarcoated reviews?
I am yet to see one example.
Every suck game got suck scores here - there were games that scored too high (like Wildstar) - but there was hardly any sugarcoating - the reviewer liked quest themeparks and scored it high - I personally am done with that so my bias would score WS a lot lower.
But that is not sugar coating - that is preference, and you can tell a difference when a review is selling you BS.
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
Generally the expectation is that when a person brings up a factoid, they have something to back it up with. Sending the people who you are trying to convince to look up your facts for you is poor form.
Fine.
After a 2 minute look:
TOR
GW2
Wildstar
Planetside 2
DCUO
And a lot more like allods and fallen earth.
What is the point?
All of those have higher reviews (sometimes much higher) than the player reviews, and the publishers were all paid advertisers here at or near the time of the games' release (we all saw the banners).
(Granted, there are a few "major" MMOs that got reviews lower than the player rating, but an exceedingly small percentage, like TSW and Neverwinter of all things.)
Writers/sites are not going to bite the advertisers' hand that feeds them, even and especially at the expense of the gamer, and that is the bottom line.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Subscriptions would do better if players could pay for 24 hours or by the week. Why 30 days? 60? A year? If they want more people to play the subs should be more flexible. I actually prefer lifetime subs to 30 days. Lifetime I can play whenever I want, 30 days I may play for a week or two out of the month. I would play more subs if I could do a 2 week sub for example.
I do like the free week some games give out as it gives me an opportunity to experience how the game is doing.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The fact is, there have been many MMOs released over the past 10 years that got amazing reviews and scores but turned out to be Not Very Good as actual fun games.
There are no new ideas in the MMO industry right now. Most MMOs have a mini map, a quest list, gear, factions, raising, icon bars, levels, talent trees and are set in a fantasy universe. And they wonder why they can't tempt WoW player over. They are basically making the same game over and over again, with a slightly different setting or theme.
They even use the same fooking names for skills or attacks, and incestuously copy each other's best ideas to become even more similar.
After years of trying them all I've stopped now - WS was the last time. It's WoW in space, except, crucially, not as good.
Originally posted by adamlotus75 The fact is, there have been many MMOs released over the past 10 years that got amazing reviews and scores but turned out to be Not Very Good as actual fun games.
There are no new ideas in the MMO industry right now. Most MMOs have a mini map, a quest list, gear, factions, raising, icon bars, levels, talent trees and are set in a fantasy universe. And they wonder why they can't tempt WoW player over. They are basically making the same game over and over again, with a slightly different setting or theme.
They even use the same fooking names for skills or attacks, and incestuously copy each other's best ideas to become even more similar.
After years of trying them all I've stopped now - WS was the last time. It's WoW in space, except, crucially, not as good.
Sounds to me like you keep picking the same old game.
I mean you picked Wildstar??? How could you expect anything new from that?
When I first played it I said it was like WoW and Firefly had a baby. :-)
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
A few years ago I got invited to a party held by a very well known person in the video games industry.
Quite a lot of people there.
There were three groups of people. Those that worked for his company, friends of those that worked there (me) and members of various gaming press.
I said then and I say it now, considering how well the press knew the guys from the company, it wasn't a case of a few random invites to a selection of reviewers, they were on first name terms, happily getting drunk with members of the company, there's no way on this planet most will give 100% honest reviews.
I suppose you might find the odd honest reviewer, but if all their Co workers and competition are being invited to parties etc and they aren't, they won't remain that well connected.
Based on what I've seen with my own eyes I would say that while cash might not change hands, it's no myth that reviews aren't 100% without incentives
I'm not going to say I know for sure about anything when it comes to the "press" in the videogame industry. But it does raise quite a few alarms when I see a game/console/product being highly reviewed by a site, with tons of advertising plastered all over said site. We've all seen it at some point. Some of us roll our eyes and can't help but question their motives. It's what any logical human being would do.
Even some youtubers/twitch streamers blatantly sell their souls like this. Some are honest about it, some aren't so honest. This is why you NEVER take your information from a single source. ALWAYS check multiple sources and make sure some of those sources are people actually paying for and playing the game as well.
Even if someone isn't being paid off, most reviews are hardly objective in nature. Unlike in the actual press, there isn't a lot of flat objective information to post about a game. A lot of them are bloated up with opinion, flowery wording, and hyperbole. Do your research and don't trust any review 100%; question everything.
I'm not going to say I know for sure about anything when it comes to the "press" in the videogame industry. But it does raise quite a few alarms when I see a game/console/product being highly reviewed by a site, with tons of advertising plastered all over said site. We've all seen it at some point. Some of us roll our eyes and can't help but question their motives. It's what any logical human being would do.
Even some youtubers/twitch streamers blatantly sell their souls like this. Some are honest about it, some aren't so honest. This is why you NEVER take your information from a single source. ALWAYS check multiple sources and make sure some of those sources are people actually paying for and playing the game as well.
Even if someone isn't being paid off, most reviews are hardly objective in nature. Unlike in the actual press, there isn't a lot of flat objective information to post about a game. A lot of them are bloated up with opinion, flowery wording, and hyperbole. Do your research and don't trust any review 100%; question everything.
And even worse than that, is the fact that this site and others like it can DIRECTLY profit from selling the very same game games they are paid by way of advertising dollars, to review.
See that "Store" button on the far right? Think that was put there for free out of the goodness of their gaming hearts?
Yeah, no.
So you have this sites and sites like it: 1. Getting paid by MMO makers by way of ad space, 2. The sites paying people to review those very same games they are paid to advertise, and 3. This site gets a piece of anything sold by way of their store button.
So, OF COURSE, the writers here are never going to over rate the games they are reviewing, or otherwise give an inaccurate picture of a mediocre MMO they review. That would be CRAZY!
/sarcasm off
In other industries, this kind of thing is literally illegal; it is only that the MMO makers and crooked non-journalists they collude with, are by and large selling video games to younger people, that they continue to get away with it.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Can you give us some examples on this site of poor games that were sugarcoated reviews?
I am yet to see one example.
Every suck game got suck scores here - there were games that scored too high (like Wildstar) - but there was hardly any sugarcoating - the reviewer liked quest themeparks and scored it high - I personally am done with that so my bias would score WS a lot lower.
But that is not sugar coating - that is preference, and you can tell a difference when a review is selling you BS.
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
Generally the expectation is that when a person brings up a factoid, they have something to back it up with. Sending the people who you are trying to convince to look up your facts for you is poor form.
Fine.
After a 2 minute look:
TOR
GW2
Wildstar
Planetside 2
DCUO
And a lot more like allods and fallen earth.
What is the point?
All of those have higher reviews (sometimes much higher) than the player reviews, and the publishers were all paid advertisers here at or near the time of the games' release (we all saw the banners).
(Granted, there are a few "major" MMOs that got reviews lower than the player rating, but an exceedingly small percentage, like TSW and Neverwinter of all things.)
Writers/sites are not going to bite the advertisers' hand that feeds them, even and especially at the expense of the gamer, and that is the bottom line.
This site rates SWToR an 8.7 and the users rate it a 7.4. That's not a very large difference. Certainly not as large a difference as Metacritic. Based on that, this site does a better job than other sites.
You are not doing a very good job of bringing facts to the table, and still seem to expect that the people reading this are going to do the fact checking for you, or just assume you are correct.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Can you give us some examples on this site of poor games that were sugarcoated reviews?
I am yet to see one example.
Every suck game got suck scores here - there were games that scored too high (like Wildstar) - but there was hardly any sugarcoating - the reviewer liked quest themeparks and scored it high - I personally am done with that so my bias would score WS a lot lower.
But that is not sugar coating - that is preference, and you can tell a difference when a review is selling you BS.
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
Generally the expectation is that when a person brings up a factoid, they have something to back it up with. Sending the people who you are trying to convince to look up your facts for you is poor form.
Fine.
After a 2 minute look:
TOR
GW2
Wildstar
Planetside 2
DCUO
And a lot more like allods and fallen earth.
What is the point?
All of those have higher reviews (sometimes much higher) than the player reviews, and the publishers were all paid advertisers here at or near the time of the games' release (we all saw the banners).
(Granted, there are a few "major" MMOs that got reviews lower than the player rating, but an exceedingly small percentage, like TSW and Neverwinter of all things.)
Writers/sites are not going to bite the advertisers' hand that feeds them, even and especially at the expense of the gamer, and that is the bottom line.
This site rates SWToR an 8.7 and the users rate it a 7.4. That's not a very large difference. Certainly not as large a difference as Metacritic. Based on that, this site does a better job than other sites.
You are not doing a very good job of bringing facts to the table, and still seem to expect that the people reading this are going to do the fact checking for you, or just assume you are correct.
Yeah?
When you consider the "real" rating range for major MMO at this site and others like it is 7.0-10.0, i.e., no game from a mainstream, advertising space buying company EVER gets less than that, or was not one listed on the site here, a delta of 1.3 out of 10 is a HUGE thumb on the scale.
If people want to dig in more to the reviews here, they can, all the data is there, even if it is not organized well to do that.
I have a job, I don't need to sit here all day and collate data on things people can look into it for themselves for 10 minutes and see the same things if they are interested.
And really, it doesn't matter much how much the thumb is on the scale for reviews, in so much as it is there in the first place.
"Reviewers are paid by developers for good scores"
That is a disingenuous presentation of what people say.
By framing it in these words it can be dismissed because you are not being paid for scores, but reviews, or positivity, or presenting it in the way they want it presented. Or even by dismissing it all because they are not actually paying you, just advertising on your site for any type of favor and those that run the site then pay you, the reviewer.
Its like back in the Roman times. They did not except bribes, that was illegal...but they did take "gifts"...
Anyway, its clear that there is outside influence because you can find key words in reviews, the same key words that the game makers use in their own interviews when talking about their own games...not to mention in websites forums for shutting people down that give negative feedback until the ad revenue stops coming in.
This could only hoped to be stopped by having "gaming sites' not have ANY advertisements of games on them, but advertisements from non-game companies. Then, they would only have to worry about not getting any interviews from game makers for having a rep that doesn't hold back and will trash a company/person that has earned it.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
1) If the developers don't balance out the classes/factions and allow problems to persist for long periods does it matter if they hate or don't hate ? They haven't done their job or met what are minimum expectations for the game. Toss in the fact that they through indifference or actively bury information about those kind of problems on their official sites, it might as well be hate.
2) Subs and particularly sub only are easily better than free to play for anyone that wants to spend a significant amount of time in a game. The problem with any kind of ala carte system is the game winds up being designed around making you pay more. What were reasonable loot drops and cooldowns for raids and what have you all of sudden become profit centers and opportunities for enhanced revenue. A good example is DCUO where you progress in the game is literally held hostage behind paywalls.
3) ROFL. I used to buy trade press advertising for my business. Not only did my money buy good press, I was repeatedly offered the opportunity to write the articles for them. You want to tell me the gaming industry has higher standards than the medical equipment industry ?
4) You need a degree in computer programming. LOL well it sure helps if you want to be a game programmer, but marketing, writing, mgmt and sales would all benefit from credentials and experience in their respective disciplines.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Can you give us some examples on this site of poor games that were sugarcoated reviews?
I am yet to see one example.
Every suck game got suck scores here - there were games that scored too high (like Wildstar) - but there was hardly any sugarcoating - the reviewer liked quest themeparks and scored it high - I personally am done with that so my bias would score WS a lot lower.
But that is not sugar coating - that is preference, and you can tell a difference when a review is selling you BS.
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
Generally the expectation is that when a person brings up a factoid, they have something to back it up with. Sending the people who you are trying to convince to look up your facts for you is poor form.
Fine.
After a 2 minute look:
TOR
GW2
Wildstar
Planetside 2
DCUO
And a lot more like allods and fallen earth.
What is the point?
All of those have higher reviews (sometimes much higher) than the player reviews, and the publishers were all paid advertisers here at or near the time of the games' release (we all saw the banners).
(Granted, there are a few "major" MMOs that got reviews lower than the player rating, but an exceedingly small percentage, like TSW and Neverwinter of all things.)
Writers/sites are not going to bite the advertisers' hand that feeds them, even and especially at the expense of the gamer, and that is the bottom line.
This site rates SWToR an 8.7 and the users rate it a 7.4. That's not a very large difference. Certainly not as large a difference as Metacritic. Based on that, this site does a better job than other sites.
You are not doing a very good job of bringing facts to the table, and still seem to expect that the people reading this are going to do the fact checking for you, or just assume you are correct.
Yeah?
When you consider the "real" rating range for major MMO at this site and others like it is 7.0-10.0, i.e., no game from a mainstream, advertising space buying company EVER gets less than that, or was not one listed on the site here, a delta of 1.3 out of 10 is a HUGE thumb on the scale.
If people want to dig in more to the reviews here, they can, all the data is there, even if it is not organized well to do that.
I have a job, I don't need to sit here all day and collate data on things people can look into it for themselves for 10 minutes and see the same things if they are interested.
And really, it doesn't matter much how much the thumb is on the scale for reviews, in so much as it is there in the first place.
Wait, I thought the problem was the gap between user reviews and the "official" reviews? If the user reviews and the "official" reviews run close together, where is the issue?
Having a job doesn't seem to stop you from presenting assumptions masquerading as facts. If you haven't made the effort to "dig in more" then you don't really have that much information. You've skimmed the top, and have likely missed out on information that might be relevant to the discussion.
Again, poor form. If you're going to present information and pass it off as factual, don't expect other people to do your leg work for you. Actually backup what you're saying with information, not just "I said so".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Instigator-Jones The suggestion that ALL press is paid for good reviews is laughable. It's a gross generalization.
No, it's not. At one time Scarlet Blades, appeared to the the number one advertiser on this site based on the frequency of front page adds. After some negative features by staff, those adds went away. Reviews may not be paid directly for positive review, but they are payed indirectly for them.
You know another industry you will find non-college educated people? Banking, and we saw how that turned out. I'm a degreed consultant, constantly cleaning up the mess of under trainded staff.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Originally posted by GregorMcgregor F2P - the cancer that killed MMORPGs! And before the "they make more money" kids jump in, they may make more, but I call that milking the saps. Overpriced shops & toxic players... you get what you pay for... welcome to Hell.
Way to perpetuate this myth - P2P games have exact same playerbase today.
Pay model and toxic players are NOT related.
When comparing pre-transition to post, you are completely wrong. The community changes ... period. The article actually doesn't even bring up any myth. It simply describes the current state of payment models in the industry. Frankly it is poor writing and misses several points of complaints and skims over others.
The argument isn't as simple as community comparisons. It also includes how the game is developed around the payment model. In game systems become altered or completely integrated into the payment model. You cannot even compare a 100% pure sub game to even a hybrid f2p model. There is a massive difference between a game designed around 100% in game progression and immersion and a game where content can be purchased outside of the game that impacts inside of the game. How this can be overlooked by so many is honestly mind-boggling.
To many players the integrity of the game is paramount. You do not allow poker players the ability to buy an Ace of Spades with cash in the middle of playing the game. You do not let a Football player purchase a shot of ephedrine and steroids in the middle of a match. That is flat out absurd ... yet video games are allowing this more and more.
There is no myth. This issue is entirely about integrity, sportsmanship and fairness for all who choose to play a game. The industry is flat out allowing cheating and gives zero shits about fairness and equality of game play. This is driven by companies allowed to bypass every and all concept of gaming equality to maximize profits. It is the definition of corruption on a level that would obliterate any top international athletic organization. It is a philosophical debate at the highest level yet few seem to be aware of it because fair play simply simply isn't a concern to many hiding behind their anonymity offered by the internet. They can get away with being selfish and openly mock those who care about the integrity of gaming.
Again, there is no myth here ... there is only ignorance toward a disturbing trend. The fact of the matter is very few f2p models even bother to strive for gaming equality for the customer. If equality and fair play within the game is preserved I am for any model that can be invented. Options befitting the genre of game and the accessibility preferred by the player is a good thing but the wanton destruction of the essence of fair play driven by nothing more than profits has to stop or this industry will lose all credibility and suffer the consequences. In fact it is already suffering.
This is the only worthy definition of a true Gamer:
to act or play in accordance with the rules.
to act honorably or justly:
I can find very many mmos anymore that allow a true gamer the experience they want. The industry is flat out corrupt and too many players are blind to this very serious transition from gaming to cash grab abhorrence. It is worse than debating community differences ... it is corrupting the mindsets of all participants in what once was a culture of gaming.
Comments
Movie studios do it there's been exposes about how movie trailers will quote reviews from publications that either don't exist or no one has ever heard of. I'm sure some video game developers/publishers do it too.
But I can tell you, while I don't know Bill Murphy personally I have interacted with him a lot on Facebook, Twitter and in some games. He's really genuine and actually enjoys MMORPGs. I truly believe him when he says reviews are in no way paid for on this site.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there was some bit of a "scandal" when they gave a less than favorable review to a game which advertised on the site. But the owners stood up for the staff and backed their freedom to write the review how they wanted.
I could be wrong but I remember seeing that or something similar.
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
Well reviewers paid by devs ,we wouldn't know anyhow,it is the other entities that pay reviewers that worries us.Many times it is just downright obvious like said review of an older game followed by an advert the next day.
Subs versus free to play is a no-brainer,there is no such thing as free to play and most know it.It then becomes a known entity versus the unknown and most certainly the known is always a better option.
I am talking of course ONLY of the monetary side of things,it still comes down to development and cost versus profit expectations that determine a quality game and that varies from one dev to another.It is simply like your wage,would a person or family that is tight on budget be able to run their lives properly if their wage was unpredictable?Well sure they could if it we are talking EXPECTED super large numbers but not so if say working one week for 700 then 3 straight weeks for 500 a week.
To me and i don't care what BS any dev tries to feed me,it is simply a case that they CAN'T go sub because their product is not good enough to compete in a sub based atmosphere.
How many times have we seen devs or adverts telling us how many players a game has,a TON of times,why not tell us about your game instead of numbers,obviously their is nothing amazing to talk about so numbers it is.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
While I am sure no developer explicitly "pays for a good review", it is also equally certain that that same publisher/developer is not going to buy or continue to buy advertising on a site that gives its products a BAD review.
So there is not much difference.
And what about everything that is not a "review"?
The puff pieces: the "first looks", the "previews", the "convention reveals", and everything else like that. All of those are done here at this site, in great numbers, for paid advertisers and you can't tell me that the advertising money plays no part in that.
The editors had out the assignments, and the writers write them and get paid for them. The writers know (unless they are morons), that they are being paid with money that came from advertising revenue, from publishers, and for the products they are writing on. So, of course, they are going to sugar coat everything, by accentuating the positives of a given product, and ignoring the negatives; all of which give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of a given product.
And who is hurt? Not the writers (they get paid), not the sites and the people running them (they get paid). The gamer who buys an average or worse game after reading the dishonest reviews, from people paid with advertising money.
So is it a direct, paying X for a good review? No. There are plenty of cutouts in between.
Do the "lies by omission" and sugar coating average/poor games make it any less dishonest?
Not even a little bit.
Personally I find Sub games to be better quality BUT GW2 and secret world brake this constant.
f2p games seemed rushed and not as polished but I also keep in mind the best PVE game in existence LOTRO was once sub now f2p.
currently playing.
Archage
Elite dangerious
SOM
project Gorgon
Gw2
Current games;
Star treck online
Rift
Eve online
Firefall
Pumped up reviews/review scores are easy to see: just go look at the official vs player review scores.
Almost all the official ones are higher, there are only a very few exceptions.
When it is that many, it is not an accident, it is policy.
Generally the expectation is that when a person brings up a factoid, they have something to back it up with. Sending the people who you are trying to convince to look up your facts for you is poor form.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Fine.
After a 2 minute look:
TOR
GW2
Wildstar
Planetside 2
DCUO
And a lot more like allods and fallen earth.
What is the point?
All of those have higher reviews (sometimes much higher) than the player reviews, and the publishers were all paid advertisers here at or near the time of the games' release (we all saw the banners).
(Granted, there are a few "major" MMOs that got reviews lower than the player rating, but an exceedingly small percentage, like TSW and Neverwinter of all things.)
Writers/sites are not going to bite the advertisers' hand that feeds them, even and especially at the expense of the gamer, and that is the bottom line.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Subscriptions would do better if players could pay for 24 hours or by the week. Why 30 days? 60? A year? If they want more people to play the subs should be more flexible. I actually prefer lifetime subs to 30 days. Lifetime I can play whenever I want, 30 days I may play for a week or two out of the month. I would play more subs if I could do a 2 week sub for example.
I do like the free week some games give out as it gives me an opportunity to experience how the game is doing.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
There are no new ideas in the MMO industry right now. Most MMOs have a mini map, a quest list, gear, factions, raising, icon bars, levels, talent trees and are set in a fantasy universe. And they wonder why they can't tempt WoW player over. They are basically making the same game over and over again, with a slightly different setting or theme.
They even use the same fooking names for skills or attacks, and incestuously copy each other's best ideas to become even more similar.
After years of trying them all I've stopped now - WS was the last time. It's WoW in space, except, crucially, not as good.
When I first played it I said it was like WoW and Firefly had a baby. :-)
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Quite a lot of people there.
There were three groups of people. Those that worked for his company, friends of those that worked there (me) and members of various gaming press.
I said then and I say it now, considering how well the press knew the guys from the company, it wasn't a case of a few random invites to a selection of reviewers, they were on first name terms, happily getting drunk with members of the company, there's no way on this planet most will give 100% honest reviews.
I suppose you might find the odd honest reviewer, but if all their Co workers and competition are being invited to parties etc and they aren't, they won't remain that well connected.
Based on what I've seen with my own eyes I would say that while cash might not change hands, it's no myth that reviews aren't 100% without incentives
I'm not going to say I know for sure about anything when it comes to the "press" in the videogame industry. But it does raise quite a few alarms when I see a game/console/product being highly reviewed by a site, with tons of advertising plastered all over said site. We've all seen it at some point. Some of us roll our eyes and can't help but question their motives. It's what any logical human being would do.
Even some youtubers/twitch streamers blatantly sell their souls like this. Some are honest about it, some aren't so honest. This is why you NEVER take your information from a single source. ALWAYS check multiple sources and make sure some of those sources are people actually paying for and playing the game as well.
Even if someone isn't being paid off, most reviews are hardly objective in nature. Unlike in the actual press, there isn't a lot of flat objective information to post about a game. A lot of them are bloated up with opinion, flowery wording, and hyperbole. Do your research and don't trust any review 100%; question everything.
And even worse than that, is the fact that this site and others like it can DIRECTLY profit from selling the very same game games they are paid by way of advertising dollars, to review.
See that "Store" button on the far right? Think that was put there for free out of the goodness of their gaming hearts?
Yeah, no.
So you have this sites and sites like it: 1. Getting paid by MMO makers by way of ad space, 2. The sites paying people to review those very same games they are paid to advertise, and 3. This site gets a piece of anything sold by way of their store button.
So, OF COURSE, the writers here are never going to over rate the games they are reviewing, or otherwise give an inaccurate picture of a mediocre MMO they review. That would be CRAZY!
/sarcasm off
In other industries, this kind of thing is literally illegal; it is only that the MMO makers and crooked non-journalists they collude with, are by and large selling video games to younger people, that they continue to get away with it.
That's because reviewers review everything, whilst players are much, much more likely to contribute to a scoring site to bash a game that they hate.
This site rates SWToR an 8.7 and the users rate it a 7.4. That's not a very large difference. Certainly not as large a difference as Metacritic. Based on that, this site does a better job than other sites.
You are not doing a very good job of bringing facts to the table, and still seem to expect that the people reading this are going to do the fact checking for you, or just assume you are correct.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah?
When you consider the "real" rating range for major MMO at this site and others like it is 7.0-10.0, i.e., no game from a mainstream, advertising space buying company EVER gets less than that, or was not one listed on the site here, a delta of 1.3 out of 10 is a HUGE thumb on the scale.
If people want to dig in more to the reviews here, they can, all the data is there, even if it is not organized well to do that.
I have a job, I don't need to sit here all day and collate data on things people can look into it for themselves for 10 minutes and see the same things if they are interested.
And really, it doesn't matter much how much the thumb is on the scale for reviews, in so much as it is there in the first place.
"Reviewers are paid by developers for good scores"
That is a disingenuous presentation of what people say.
By framing it in these words it can be dismissed because you are not being paid for scores, but reviews, or positivity, or presenting it in the way they want it presented. Or even by dismissing it all because they are not actually paying you, just advertising on your site for any type of favor and those that run the site then pay you, the reviewer.
Its like back in the Roman times. They did not except bribes, that was illegal...but they did take "gifts"...
Anyway, its clear that there is outside influence because you can find key words in reviews, the same key words that the game makers use in their own interviews when talking about their own games...not to mention in websites forums for shutting people down that give negative feedback until the ad revenue stops coming in.
This could only hoped to be stopped by having "gaming sites' not have ANY advertisements of games on them, but advertisements from non-game companies. Then, they would only have to worry about not getting any interviews from game makers for having a rep that doesn't hold back and will trash a company/person that has earned it.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
This article is out right laughable.
1) If the developers don't balance out the classes/factions and allow problems to persist for long periods does it matter if they hate or don't hate ? They haven't done their job or met what are minimum expectations for the game. Toss in the fact that they through indifference or actively bury information about those kind of problems on their official sites, it might as well be hate.
2) Subs and particularly sub only are easily better than free to play for anyone that wants to spend a significant amount of time in a game. The problem with any kind of ala carte system is the game winds up being designed around making you pay more. What were reasonable loot drops and cooldowns for raids and what have you all of sudden become profit centers and opportunities for enhanced revenue. A good example is DCUO where you progress in the game is literally held hostage behind paywalls.
3) ROFL. I used to buy trade press advertising for my business. Not only did my money buy good press, I was repeatedly offered the opportunity to write the articles for them. You want to tell me the gaming industry has higher standards than the medical equipment industry ?
4) You need a degree in computer programming. LOL well it sure helps if you want to be a game programmer, but marketing, writing, mgmt and sales would all benefit from credentials and experience in their respective disciplines.
Wait, I thought the problem was the gap between user reviews and the "official" reviews? If the user reviews and the "official" reviews run close together, where is the issue?
Having a job doesn't seem to stop you from presenting assumptions masquerading as facts. If you haven't made the effort to "dig in more" then you don't really have that much information. You've skimmed the top, and have likely missed out on information that might be relevant to the discussion.
Again, poor form. If you're going to present information and pass it off as factual, don't expect other people to do your leg work for you. Actually backup what you're saying with information, not just "I said so".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No, it's not. At one time Scarlet Blades, appeared to the the number one advertiser on this site based on the frequency of front page adds. After some negative features by staff, those adds went away. Reviews may not be paid directly for positive review, but they are payed indirectly for them.
You know another industry you will find non-college educated people? Banking, and we saw how that turned out. I'm a degreed consultant, constantly cleaning up the mess of under trainded staff.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
When comparing pre-transition to post, you are completely wrong. The community changes ... period. The article actually doesn't even bring up any myth. It simply describes the current state of payment models in the industry. Frankly it is poor writing and misses several points of complaints and skims over others.
The argument isn't as simple as community comparisons. It also includes how the game is developed around the payment model. In game systems become altered or completely integrated into the payment model. You cannot even compare a 100% pure sub game to even a hybrid f2p model. There is a massive difference between a game designed around 100% in game progression and immersion and a game where content can be purchased outside of the game that impacts inside of the game. How this can be overlooked by so many is honestly mind-boggling.
To many players the integrity of the game is paramount. You do not allow poker players the ability to buy an Ace of Spades with cash in the middle of playing the game. You do not let a Football player purchase a shot of ephedrine and steroids in the middle of a match. That is flat out absurd ... yet video games are allowing this more and more.
There is no myth. This issue is entirely about integrity, sportsmanship and fairness for all who choose to play a game. The industry is flat out allowing cheating and gives zero shits about fairness and equality of game play. This is driven by companies allowed to bypass every and all concept of gaming equality to maximize profits. It is the definition of corruption on a level that would obliterate any top international athletic organization. It is a philosophical debate at the highest level yet few seem to be aware of it because fair play simply simply isn't a concern to many hiding behind their anonymity offered by the internet. They can get away with being selfish and openly mock those who care about the integrity of gaming.
Again, there is no myth here ... there is only ignorance toward a disturbing trend. The fact of the matter is very few f2p models even bother to strive for gaming equality for the customer. If equality and fair play within the game is preserved I am for any model that can be invented. Options befitting the genre of game and the accessibility preferred by the player is a good thing but the wanton destruction of the essence of fair play driven by nothing more than profits has to stop or this industry will lose all credibility and suffer the consequences. In fact it is already suffering.
This is the only worthy definition of a true Gamer:
You stay sassy!