Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Should game journalists be subjected to law and game companies anti-bribary??
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Having now seen both sides, I think the percentage of people "paid off" is a lot less than is thrown out there, it seems to be a convenient scapegoat term when someone doesn't agree with the review that is given.
Try to remember it's ok to disagree with the review given and heck some great discourse can come from it if all parties involved are willing to have an honest talk and respect all parties involved (doesn't often happen, but I can dream). A review is the opinion of the reviewer and their personal likes and dislikes may be a part of it no matter how unbiased they try to be. We're human, it's part of our nature.
The best thing I can suggest is to try doing it yourself for a while, whether that's via blog posts or youtube videos and see if that changes how you feel about game journalism. Oh, and youtubers get their stuff for free too for reviewing.
Anyways, have a great day everyone. Thanks for listening.
I'm not saying reviews don't lead to game purchases, I've bought several games I discovered from reading a review. It wasn't the review which made me buy the game however, I did a lot of research after reading the review.
I'm generally curious if people buy games only based on a review, I wouldn't think that to be very common these days with all the other available sources of information about games.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
So why would I read a video game review and think, unlike almost everything else I read, this one is the rock solid, unvarnished Gospel truth?
And even if the video game reviewer was doing their very best to be unbiased, they still are not me. They may not share my preferences. They could say the game is excellent, and really, really mean it, and it still suck for me. What then? Was it the oatmeal cookies some vendor put in the box with the complimentary game disc? Bastards!
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
They're subject to the laws, but only if someone points the law at them?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Your example is made for a completely different industry where there are measurable metrics. If a car only goes 60 miles per hour and gets 10 miles to the gallon but you reviewed it and said you exceed 300 miles an hour and got 70miles per gallon AND your review is endorsed by the manufacturer now your getting into false advertise.
You cant create laws and regulations based on someones opinion or interpretation.
Dude they are DOPEY cheap ass computer games, stop making more over of this than its worth. Its up to you to decide if you agree with someone or like something, we don't need laws for that.
A reviewer says a game gets 4.5 stars out 5. Does that make it a fact, or is it their opinion? How about movie reviewers? Automotive reviewers? Restaurant reviewers?
In my opinion, opinions should never be regulated
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
To report you need proof and to fill out a large document.IMo the document/form is designed in a way to deter people from reporting which kind of says>>>We can't be bothered unless it is a big payday for our office and good press,little guys don't matter to us".
Like you heard about the case involving Disney and You Tube streamers but you never hear about small cases because they got 300k out of Disney.
The law clearly states ANY form of value given is considered sponsored.There lies the other problem,if you simply say sponsored you are sort of free to do anything bound by only one other law and that is to make sure the AVERAGE viewer understands it is sponsored and an advertisement.Like what was happening a lot is streamers/You Tubers would stick some hidden disclosure at the end of the video in small print where nobody would see it.
The laws all contradict themselves,so imo we have too many dumbasses making laws and why if things get too complicated a judge needs to make the final decision based not entirely of the law but possibly on opinion. and/or sometimes a new law gets introduced to cover vague areas.
Misrepresentation,misleading all a part of the laws.You actually need to have proven you have the qualifications to give a review of a product,meaning having used the product ENOUGH and over time,however easy to undermine the law,just claim PREVIEW or ONGOING review anything to simply form a biased opinion without any legal backlash.
However it still falls under the guise of MISLEADING advertising.If it is obvious the INTENT is to endorse/advertise but disguised as some sort of preview/review than it can be considered illegal intent to mislead consumers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I fear I may have missed the original point of this thread :S
I do read reviews and listen to what they have to say, but at the end of the day, I have to play it myself, because no matter what, they aren't me. If I see a game I feel I might like, I try it.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Let's say I "bribe" a game reviewer to say nice things about my game, not with money, but with a free copy of the game.
The reviewer is now the proud owner of a game that someone has to be bribed to say nice things about. Woot?
If the sole reward is a copy of a shitty game, why even bother to take such a "bribe?"
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I would say they are biased.
The thought that a certain company might stop advertising on your website would be enough to add 1 or 2 extra points to the overall score of a game.
I don't believe in blatant bribery in most cases.
The OP starts from the position that game journalists and game companies are not subject to any laws when it comes to receiving or providing samples without cost. This is patently false
PC hardware and software reviewers get sample for the same reason that automobile journalists and reviewers get, at least temporarily, 'free' samples of automobiles to review. The sample providers want someone else other than themselves to provide some hopefully positive market spin. The vast majority of consumers already know this. It is the utterly naive that permit themselves to be swayed by a third party.
The main difference in the two industries is the monetary value of the samples. The auto manufacturers will take those samples back because they have a higher monetary value than PC hardware and software. They can then test the returned vehicles for defects and learn from them. Then the samples are either used within the manufacturer or are sold as used vehicles.
Most PC components and software don't have enough value to need to be returned.
The only testing organisation I know of that actually buys all of the products they test is called Consumer Reports. They are a non-profit, non-government, private organisation whose funds are provided by the individual subscribers to their publications.
Because nothing about knowing that qualifies those folks to commit those heinous acts, and nothing about knowing a streamer or reviewer is shilling makes it okay that the person tries to mislead by shilling. Same principle, merely a lower stakes situation.