Jimquisition: Integrity, Journalism, and Free PS4s

[Jburton9]

When you review a game who are you representing? Are you representing a gamer who is gifted with free games, a free console and so now all is needed is free time?

If you have not noticed it is not like the economy is going so fantastically that we can all afford whatever game we desire in a moments notice. Same goes for plunking down $400-500 for a console.

Game enjoyment and the cost of it is an exchange so how is that fairly and genuinely represented when it is all free?

Reality is unless you get the number of viewers sufficiently high enough you will not get a free console or a free game. So how are those reviewers getting by then?

Jim I generally like your work and your commentary is insightful but on this topic I must respectfully disagree.


The simple fact is vested interests, once there is free benefit given then it will shape opinions. Ask a lobbyist sometime about their job and it's effectiveness on how they shapes others opinions. : )

 

[TheKrigeron]

Here's My take on the matter:
Someone at Sony: So we're sending new consoles to reviewers Again?
Someone else At sony: Yup
That guy from earlier: Hey, Since we make Consoles Almost every decade , we should do a little thingy for the Reviewers
Some guy, still at Sony: Like putting their name on their Systems?
Coworker: That's a great Idea!
Garry: Awesome.

Here's the Gamers take on the matter:

Skeletor: Mhhhhm, those pesty Critics are Claming their due once again!
**** McPoopface: Indeeed!
Skeletor: Ohoh! this is our oprtunity to Manipulate them! But what o' what will buy their souls and eternal Loyalty?!
Prince of Evil #36: I know! Engraving Their name on the token will surely do! Their integrity and professionalism isn't worth a nickle if we were to just write their name on it!
HufflePuff: Muhahahaha!
Gary: Awesome.

 

[hydrolythe]

As much as I actually like Jim Sterling, I disagree with him on that part.
First of all, a critic who feels the weight of the pay will give a much lower score to the game in question than a critic who doesn't.
Secondly, they get limited editions that are made to cater specially for them (making the first argument even more weighted).
Thirdly, you aren't going to tell me that you can choose what review score you give towards a game, because you already said that if companies cut your video game supply off, your job would become too expensive to maintain. It makes me think that a first-party company is going to say this to you "You will give each game that can become a great exclusive for our console a minimum of (insert high score here)/10 or we will prevent you from getting your supply of games to review so that you will go to the streets and have to buy your games yourself (and in the end not be able to afford to be a reviewer)."
Finally, whilst I agree with you that the expectations of consumers can influence reviews, I still believe that if you present your review well enough that nobody is going to have the slightest bit of hatred towards your review.

 

[Something Amyss]

First of all, a critic who feels the weight of the pay will give a much lower score to the game in question than a critic who doesn't.

So prove it. This should be easy to demonstrate since you're asserting it with such certainty.

Game enjoyment and the cost of it is an exchange so how is that fairly and genuinely represented when it is all free?

Does a game become objectively better when it is cheaper? More expensive? No?

Further, you've established a scenario where no reviewer can adequately review because a reviewer can never adequately "represent" every arm of the gaming population. Do we need a reviewer for every demographic, now? from the average gamer with a fair amount of disposable cash to the budget gamer to the child cracking open his piggy bank? Do you honestly believe reviews of games will change significantly if we were to break things down into a series of fiscal groups? Because that just sounds absurd.

 

[Something Amyss]

Here's My take on the matter:
Someone at Sony: So we're sending new consoles to reviewers Again?
Someone else At sony: Yup
That guy from earlier: Hey, Since we make Consoles Almost every decade , we should do a little thingy for the Reviewers
Some guy, still at Sony: Like putting their name on their Systems?
Coworker: That's a great Idea!
Garry: Awesome.

Here's the Gamers take on the matter:

Skeletor: Mhhhhm, those pesty Critics are Claming their due once again!
**** McPoopface: Indeeed!
Skeletor: Ohoh! this is our oprtunity to Manipulate them! But what o' what will buy their souls and eternal Loyalty?!
Prince of Evil #36: I know! Engraving Their name on the token will surely do! Their integrity and professionalism isn't worth a nickle if we were to just write their name on it!
HufflePuff: Muhahahaha!
Gary: Awesome.

A more probable scenario:

Someone at Sony: Gamers are all filthy thieves and pirates who like to sell off their old games and consoles, stealing money from us. To prevent resale/gifting of our console, let's clearly mark each console allowing us to conveniently identify the source of the theft should someone actually decide to sell theirs off.

Someone else at Sony: Brilliant!

Seriously, it's not the first or last time something like this has been done as essentially an anti-theft device. The fact that these reviewers will need a console to review games on is wholly irrelevant to the fears of game companies.

And media in general. Some music labels come just shy of telling reviewers "you're a fucking thief and can't be trusted, so we're going to do everything to stop you from stealing our media short of putting a remote-activated poison capsule in your heart!"

 

[Omnicide]

A little late to the party that is this tread, but I think after skimming it nobody has brought this up:

While many game journalism sites behave in a completely ethical manner, not all of them have a publicly viewable Editorial Ethics policy. I looked around the Escapist about sections for one, but couldn't locate anything like it. (I also learned that they haven't updated their About section to show that ol' Jimothy is now a part of the Escapist staff.)

Anyway. I searched various game jornalism websites for their ethics policies, and I only found one that was completely transparent. I hate to site the example for fear of moderator infracthammers hitting me, but Joystiq happens to have a pretty comprehensive and publicly viewable ethics policy, and (again I say this in fear of the infracthammer) I think other sites, including the Escapist, should follow suit.

The tricky part is what power do we, as the consumer, have to hold jornalists - and their organizations - accountable when we suspect or even have evidence that they did violate an ethical policy that they do (or should) have? Individuals can only throw around so much weight nowadays.

 

[M920CAIN]

Hmm, free games, free consoles, biased reviews, ok, I want to be a reviewer too. I want to get free stuff, comment about the free stuff and get paid for it too... damn you guys have it good, you rich f--ks.

 

[Jennacide]

The really infuriating thing about this whole ordeal is NeoGAF's thread basically aimed to counter my entire belief on games reviewers and journalists, and I could never fathom why. Do movie reviewers pay to see movies? 99% of the time no. Are art and food critics paid to go see/eat the content? Yes. Why the hell should game journalists be treated different? It's why a lot of gaming press don't see like press. If you want to be mad about something, be mad about being in bed with companies that aren't game devs, like Doritos and Mountain Dew. I'm looking at you Dorito Pope.

 

[Stephanos132]

Well, all this does for me is reiterate how much I dislike my job, and I how I boil with envy at those like Jim who do what they enjoy AND get paid for it, and that's before we get to the free consoles and games (which I accept as necessary to the job, at least). And, to really push my buttons, they claim to do so as a service to me, the alleged gamer.

Quite thoroughly green now. Where do I hand in my CV?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I would have thought letting us know they were given the systems would show they weren't hiding anything... Even though they got PS4 systems from Sony, that they were keeping people in the know, but some people just don't get it I guess.

 

[mjc0961]

I think it was that line that made me realize how unnecessary video game journalism is. I mean, are we seriously going to dozens and dozens of websites to get other peoples opinions on things that are subjective to taste?

If it stops me buying utter shit like Ride to Hell Retribution, Mindjack, Sonic Free Riders, Aliens Colonial Marines (except I bought that one anyway because I stupidly trusted Gearbox not to be a shit company and that bit me in the ass), and more, then yes. I am seriously gong to dozens and dozens of websites to get other people's opinions on things that aren't always subjective to taste. Yeah, sometimes reviews aren't subject to taste. If you try to tell me that Ride to Hell being terrible in almost every way is subjective to taste, I'm going to think you're a nutter. Me not liking inFamous is subjective to taste. Aliens Colonial Marines being a pile of lies by Gearbox is fact and not subjective at all.

And as for the ones that are subjective to taste, that's why I go to multiple reviews in the first place: so I can get lots of different viewpoints on the game and, based on what each reviewer talks about in terms of what the game does and if they liked it or not, figure out if it's something that I'll likely enjoy. It doesn't always work (to this day I can't figure out why people praise Okami so much), but most of the time it does.

So to me, video game journalism is pretty necessary. Or rather, video game reviews are necessary. There's a bigger problem with your initial statement that video game journalism is unnecessary, and it's that journalism is more than just reviews. It's also previews, news, interviews, and other such things. And if you really think that stuff is unnecessary too, well you just have fun buying whatever games get advertised to you by the publishers without knowing a damn thing about them because you didn't read any of the unnecessary news, reviews, previews, interviews, and other journalistic pieces about the game.

 

[senordesol]

The tricky part is what power do we, as the consumer, have to hold jornalists - and their organizations - accountable when we suspect or even have evidence that they did violate an ethical policy that they do (or should) have? Individuals can only throw around so much weight nowadays.

You have the power to not frequent their sites and tell others why they shouldn't either. If you feel they've actually violated a stated policy, write to the editor-in-chief with your complaint (and encourage others to do the same).

But remember: these sites are for consumer reviews, not investigative journalism. They don't exist to did up dirt or expose; meaning that you've little to worry about in the form of slander or the other sins of yellow journalism. Really, it all comes down to what their opinion is on a particular product.

If you trust that they'll give you a fair assessment of the product's assets and flaws to the point where you feel you'll be ready to make a purchase based on that information alone: then there's no problem. If you don't trust them enough: go elsewhere, or get multiple opinions and see if the mean result is one you agree with.

 

[daxterx2005]

How does the PS4 taste, Jim?

 

[JoshuaMadoc]

I guess my attitude of using anything I bought and received as gifts to further my profession is also enough to warrant death threats from sophists who think I should do things THEIR way and not in my own definition of professional efficiency. Although I have to say, I never got the appeal of using social media to show off what is practically something a lot of other people have. Instead of, you know, owning something wherein there's only one of its kind.

Pragmatism, folks! It's a cardinal sin, apparently, one that warrants a witch hunt.

 

[MPZero]

wait what? people are complaing that someones job give them the tools to do their job? are they ass hat stupid?

hell my job lets me see the films as they comeout... sure its nice with things like the avangers but i also had to watch twilight.

some jobs have good extras some dont, to complain about a reviers geting things to review is just plain stupid.

i do agree the reviewrs shouldnt be flaunting that they have them off to twiter but this is more a thing for the reviewers to take home and learn and not to say "i have you dont£ Than they should pay to review..

sigh stupid people complaning about stupid things.

- MPZ

 

[SecondPrize]

I'll just leave this here and move along:

And you know... players also actually have to pay for their games to see if they are worth it, it is pretty much a value proposition you can't really judge if you get everything for free since you can't assign it a monetary worth.

Let The Escapist as a publication pay for it since they are the ones making money off of it or at least send them back/deactivate them after you "did your work".
All sorts of hardware and product reviewers don't get to keep the stuff after reviewing it either.

This. If video game journalists want to be considered in the same ballpark as actual journalists then the need to start behaving like them. Pretending that it's a choice between penury or accepting gifts from developers and publishers isn't the right way to start this.

wait what? people are complaing that someones job give them the tools to do their job? are they ass hat stupid?

hell my job lets me see the films as they comeout... sure its nice with things like the avangers but i also had to watch twilight.

some jobs have good extras some dont, to complain about a reviers geting things to review is just plain stupid.

i do agree the reviewrs shouldnt be flaunting that they have them off to twiter but this is more a thing for the reviewers to take home and learn and not to say "i have you dont£ Than they should pay to review..

sigh stupid people complaning about stupid things.

- MPZ

It's more a matter of who they're getting their tools from. Most people get them from their actual employers, not from outside companies whose products they review.

 

[Lightknight]

Though I do agree that the studio did some serious shenanigans, they are the worst example by far. They made an embargo and then released early. They essentially tricked reviewers on purpose. That is NOT typical. Can you name three other games that have done that in the past? You're essentially using a needle in a haystack to say that the haystack is made of needles.

Games that have abused the system

The War Z - The actual worst offender. Take your pick on the level of abuse.
SimCity - Gave reviewers a controlled to review the game.
Kane and Lynch: Dead Men - Getting a reviewer fired, and this is the main issue. Most of these firing are secret. The reviewers don't know why they're being let go just that they are. When they do know they get slapped with legal non-disparagement paperwork. The only reason we know about Jeff Gerstmann is that it was very public, and CNET desperately wanted to buy Giant Bomb, but since they owned GameStop too they were forced to drop the non-disparagement agreement.

There isn't a single solitary way for the corrupt system Jim is defending to be abused. It is multi-pronged, and is only possible because reviewers are dependent upon bribes to do business.

It is far better to have no review. The few reviewers who refused to give a review of SimCity because they knew they were in a controlled environment that wouldn't reflect the users experience are honest reviewers. Reviewers like TotalBiscuit refused to actually give a recommendation because he knew his experience wouldn't reflect the users experience. Not all reviewers did, and it took the fiasco with Diablo 3 to teach the few reviewers that giving games in that stat any review is a bad idea.

The root cause needs to be removed in order to make reviews trustworthy. The direct dependence on the publishers and developers is the cause, and that needs to be mitigated.

Got any of examples of reviewers having a review copy being bad? Your examples seem to be problems with the review process as a whole rather than anything to do with the discussion as a whole.

 

[Darmani]

According to Jim he *needs* the provisions given by developers and publisher-manufacturers.

but reviewers aren't influenced by the providing of their needs. Even though attendance and ball playing are necessary for financial solvency.

Definitely no contradiction there. All game reviewers who say so are a above influence by those who are critical to their professional livelihood more so than the consumers for who they ostensibly report.