Former IGN Editor Accused Of "Misconduct"

[krysalist]

Former IGN Editor Accused Of "Misconduct"

A former IGN editor is being accused of "journalistic misconduct" over the website's 2006 review of Prey.

Former IGN editor Doug Perry (currently employed at Gametap), was cited by another former IGN editor as working closely with a publicist at 2K Games on securing a good rating [http://pc.ign.com/articles/717/717800p1.html] for 2006's Prey.

In an August 20 post [http://pc.ign.com/articles/717/717800p1.html] titled "Taint or Mere IGNorance," Video Game Media Watch contributor David Goronski quoted the anonymous former editor from an email to Goronski explaining the situation:

I hear Doug [Perry] saying to Marci [Ditter, from 2K Games] something along the lines of "No, I'm sure it is a great game. I'm pretty sure it is going to do well. That's why we want the exclusive. We don't want the exclusive on crappy games... " so on... He gets off the phone and heads over to Tom [McNamara, reviewer of Prey] and asks him, "Tom, what were you thinking you were going to give Prey?"

A week later, Perry responded [http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1112#more-1112] with a categorical denial of Goronski's allegations:

Here is what happened. I entered into several phone call conversations with the PR director at 2K Games; the content of our discussion was about whether my former company, IGN, should get the exclusive review for Prey, which was the biggest game of the summer 2006 (clearly a dry summer ). IGN has always been keen on attaining exclusive reviews. The tricky part of the equation is to get exclusives on games that we A) liked, and B) got traffic. That's a big, if not the biggest, portion of the driving force behind media sites. They want to drive traffic to sell ads to make money, while performing the journalistic matter of entertaining and informing its readers.

Goronski responded [http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1113] to Perry's defense in early September, accusing him of "journalistic misconduct," in a scathing post to VGMW:

Perry argues that discussing scores with PR firms is a perfectly acceptable practice. It's not about whether an editor doing this practice thinks he can handle the PR firm's pressure. It's about principle! A PR firm's job is to maximize sales of a game product. The game publication's job is to provide an unbiased, trustworthy critique of the product free of any taint. The publication's editorial integrity is compromised when PR deals are potential factors in the product reviews it provides. The dialog should simply never happen.

In a comment to the post, Electronic Gaming Monthly's editor-in-chief, Daniel Hsu, agreed with Goronoski's condemnation of Perry.

"If an editor gets a pitch like that," Hsu wrote, "he/she is obligated to keep all of that conversation away from the reviewers of the product in question."

Permalink

 

[Geoffrey42]

In a comment to the post, a poster named "shoe," who is likely Electronic Gaming Monthly's Editor-in-chief, Dan Hsu, agreed with Goronoski's condemnation of Perry.

Is there some evidence of this, other than the use of the tag "shoe"? Sure, if I were reading it, I would make a similar inference, that it was at least possible. I would even smile to myself at the thought of it being him. But likely? On what grounds?

 

[krysalist]

Here's a link to the comment... I had forgot to throw it into the story:

http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1113

I have an email in to Shu in order to confirm it was actually him, but all signs point to yes.

 

[shu [deprecated]]

Obviously, when someone uses a name in a context which could be construed to indicate a specific well-known identity, it means that it is likely that real life person.

For example, I actually am Dan Hsu, famous for gaming journalism integrity and for asking real questions during interviews that weren't provided on the "suggested PR questions" cheat sheet.

I am obviously not Geoffrey42 trying to make a point.

VERY obviously

SO obviously that I would hope the forum admins here at the Escapist would not mistake my post as abuse of multiple logins, and ban the innocent, but stupid, Geoffrey42. I mean, he doesn't even think forum names are valid for identifying real world personas. Poor guy.

On a similar note, since I like for my forum names to be consistent across sites, partly to make me more easily identifiable in largely anonymous settings, I found it very annoying that the name "shoe" was already registered at the Escapist. Whoever you are, you poser, I demand that you immediately surrender to me my rightful forum name. I don't want you going around making a bad name for me. Because, people will think it is me. When its not. Because I am the one, true, authentic, Dan Hsu.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Here's a link to the comment... I had forgot to throw it into the story:

http://vgmwatch.com/?p=1113

I have an email in to Shu in order to confirm it was actually him, but all signs point to yes.

This takes all the fun out of my ploy.

My only hope at vindication is if he replies in the negative.

And, I think it's hilarious that you said "Shu". I couldn't have planned that better if I had tried.

 

[Russ Pitts]

This takes all the fun out of my ploy.

I can think of other ways of doing that.

 

[Blaxton]

GameSpot for reviews, IGN for news, GamePolitics for... politics, GamesIndustry for business, Escapist for editorials.

IGN reviews are written in colloquialism and nothing more. Controls are either "intuitive" or "wonky". Bozon called the Metroid Prime 3 for the Wii the "definitive version" even though there is no other version in existence. He probably read Matt use that term somewhere and got confused about what it means. Crap like that is all over the site--overused terminology that proves a lack of care about quality writing.

I don't trust IGN for anything other than the press releases they rewrite and post on their site. The reviews are often inflated in both score and length.

I'm not surprised in the least about this accusation. They often have hype built up for games for extended periods that end up being kind of crappy (the games look stupid from the get-go). Do people actually think NiGHTS is going to be so great? MySims looked stupid from early on, clearly a method for EA to exercise the Sims name they acquired with the Maxis absorption. My wonder is that how, with hands on experience, do they consistently do this. Why do they so often hype up a game that they have played and that they know isn't working?

Also, I'm not a fan of exclusives; I hate IGN for that too because I have to wait longer to get a decent review from another site.

 

[Andy Chalk]

So what kind of review did IGN end up giving the game?

 

[Brian Easton]

So what kind of review did IGN end up giving the game?

A 90% which was about the same as 11 other media outlets. Since I don't know when this conversation happened it's hard to discern whether or not the reviewer already had an idea of what the socre was going to be. Given the other reviews, it doesn't look like there was anything shady going on.

 

[Redfeather]

So what kind of review did IGN end up giving the game?

A 90% which was about the same as 11 other media outlets. Since I don't know when this conversation happened it's hard to discern whether or not the reviewer already had an idea of what the socre was going to be. Given the other reviews, it doesn't look like there was anything shady going on.

I just want to emphasize this portion:

Perry argues that discussing scores with PR firms is a perfectly acceptable practice. It's not about whether an editor doing this practice thinks he can handle the PR firm's pressure. It's about principle! A PR firm's job is to maximize sales of a game product. The game publication's job is to provide an unbiased, trustworthy critique of the product free of any taint. The publication's editorial integrity is compromised when PR deals are potential factors in the product reviews it provides. The dialog should simply never happen.

The fact that it doesn't appear to have altered the review score when the review is compared to others isn't the point, though it's certainly less damning for them than if they had given it a substantially higher score than others.

It's really about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. It's not wrong of him to talk to the PR firm, but once he does he can't taint the review by talking to the reviewer about ANY conversation with the PR firm.

If the reviewer is made aware that their score could affect other business with the media outlet, it can affect their review. How can you honestly review a game if you knew that the result may cost huge ad bucks if there are threats that many ads will be pulled if Psycho Killers III: We Eat Babies doesn't get at least an 8? Or that an exclusive will be lost if it doesn't score high enough?

Which is not to say that you can't have an honest review despite those things, you can. But it shouldn't take place in the first place. If it does, or if for some reason it's utterly unavoidable, then you must disclose the potential bias to your readership to allow them to be aware of the potential and decide the veracity for themselves.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

90%? wowza. 11 places? eek!

11 other media outlets are likely the Gamespy/other ones, which are all pretty much the "non-bell-curve" type the same as IGN.

I am glad that some of the possibly more dodgy PR stuff gets to see the light, makes me trust reading their reviews even less if I ever do in the first place

 

[Andy Chalk]

90% for Prey AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Okay.

I realize that the principle is what's at stake here, but I'm not seeing where the "appearance of impropriety" reared its ugly head at all. If anything, we have a conversation between two professionals in their workplace, certainly not intended for public consumption and reasonably assumed that it would remain that way. These kinds of conversations happen all the time, in virtually every kind of business. I also didn't see where Perry said anything to McNamara about the review other than asking about his planned score - as editor, isn't that the sort of information he'd be privy to anyway?

I absolutely agree that publishers and PR hacks should have no influence over game reviews whatsoever. It does a huge disservice to gamers and represents a complete lack of journalistic integrity. But at the same time, I'm not prepared to pile on based on snippets of conversation overheard by a guy halfway across the room.

And to take it one step further, the fact that 11 separate review sites gave Prey a 90% score represents something far more fundamentally wrong with the videogame review process in general than some wobbly accusation of "misconduct."

 

[Redfeather]

I understand what you're saying...here's the issue though. If there's bias, or even potential bias, that has to be disclosed. I'm sure you've seen many articles from big media corps with the disclaimer at the top that the story they're reporting on involves someone they're financially in bed with, or involves a company owned by the gianormous conglomerate.

There's absolutely no issue with a magazine or e-zine having various business relationships with the subjects of their articles and reviews, that's the nature of the beast. When you read a review for Baby Eaters III: We Like Butter put out by PwnStar Gaming and note in the same magazine numerous ads for that game, plus additional ads from the company who makes it hawking their warez...well if you have two brain cells firing you're aware that everyone is sorta in bed with each other here.

Yet it's fully possible for that to be, and for a reviewer or critic to submit honest work. It happens all the time. Movie critics review movies which are produced by companies which are owned by a bigger company which also owns the newspaper they're printed in, or the television station airing it.

Once there's *any* conversation with that critic about the business relationship and how it could be affected by a review, the review is tainted.

There's a world of difference if you as a contributer on the site know that Company A buys ads...and being asked by (or told by) an editor here for the jist of an article you're working on because Company A has some concerns on whether or not they'll run exclusives if it's not super positive.

Whether or not that bias changes what you've written, or what you would have written...that's another issue. The fact is that you can't unscrew the pooch. Instead, you disclose it. Telling your audience ahead of time and allowing them with that information in hand to weigh the veracity of what you write is about a gazillion times better than having it come out, and because it wasn't disclosed, it now looks even shadier.

The seperate issue of gaming reviews and how in the holy hell did Prey get 90%...yet another issue. And I'd suspect if one did some digging they might find a correlation between the money that gets spent various places, and the ultimate review score. It's probably not even overtly dirty either. People tend to be nicer to those they like, and writers are human. We can be swayed by hype and shinys. We shouldn't be, but that's another rant.

90% for Prey. Baby Jeebus weeps.