Jimquisition: Integrity, Journalism, and Free PS4s

[Aardvaarkman]

The game is, of course, dreadful and in places functionally broken but I wonder if reviewers would have been a bit kinder to it if they didn't have to shell out personal money for it.

Psychologically, I think it works the opposite way. When you pay money for something, you are more likely to praise and justify it, because you are invested in it. This is one of the reasons fans become so rabid - because they have invested time and money in their products, and they don't want to seem foolish for having bought an inferior product.

Imagine if clean air wasn't free to breathe. I'd imagine that the review scores for "fresh air" would go through the roof. But if you've lived your whole life somewhere with breathable air, you don;t even think about it.

I think the area where money mainly comes into this is the promise of future money. If somebody gives you something for free, you aren't invested in reviewing it positively or not. You already have it. However, if somebody promises future money based on an outcome (advertising revenue, etc.), then the situation changes. Likewise, if your livelihood is threatened by not taking certain actions (i.e: Kane & Lynch) then that's also a motivator.

A straight-up review copy doesn't really act that way. What does is the way that advertising revenue is what most review sites are dependent upon these days.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for [strong]all[/strong] of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

 

[MatsVS]

The thing is, if game companies were in the habit of "implying" to the people who received their games that a good score was somehow expected, someone somewhere sometime would have documented this and revealed it. Yet this simply doesn't happen. Because that would be stupid, and believing that this is a thing that happens is stupid. People who cry about corruption and such nonsense are short sighted and bitter little people and we should all just ignore them.

 

[Weaver]

The game is, of course, dreadful and in places functionally broken but I wonder if reviewers would have been a bit kinder to it if they didn't have to shell out personal money for it.

Psychologically, I think it works the opposite way. When you pay money for something, you are more likely to praise and justify it, because you are invested in it. This is one of the reasons fans become so rabid - because they have invested time and money in their products, and they don't want to seem foolish for having bought an inferior product.

Imagine if clean air wasn't free to breathe. I'd imagine that the review scores for "fresh air" would go through the roof. But if you've lived your whole life somewhere with breathable air, you don;t even think about it.

I think the area where money mainly comes into this is the promise of future money. If somebody gives you something for free, you aren't invested in reviewing it positively or not. You already have it. However, if somebody promises future money based on an outcome (advertising revenue, etc.), then the situation changes. Likewise, if your livelihood is threatened by not taking certain actions (i.e: Kane & Lynch) then that's also a motivator.

A straight-up review copy doesn't really act that way. What does is the way that advertising revenue is what most review sites are dependent upon these days.

That's a good counter point! I hadn't really considered that.

I guess it might come down to the type of person you are. The kind feels the sort of financial investment like you mentioned or the one who fells ripped off at a poor quality product you paid money for. I'm quite cynical myself and I feel pretty ripped off when something doesn't deliver on its value, personally.

 

[Weaver]

I do have to wonder if, on a base level, the PS4 is even worth reviewing at all. The only people who have them, and subsequently the games for them, bought them months ago as pre-orders. I couldn't even go out and buy one as every store capped their pre-orders and sold out within like a week of their availability.

It's not like you're saving them money by telling them not to get something, because they already got it.

 

[Stormwaltz]

(leaving)

 

[Callate]

The thing is, if game companies were in the habit of "implying" to the people who received their games that a good score was somehow expected, someone somewhere sometime would have documented this and revealed it. Yet this simply doesn't happen. Because that would be stupid, and believing that this is a thing that happens is stupid. People who cry about corruption and such nonsense are short sighted and bitter little people and we should all just ignore them.

Sadly, this is not the case.

I'm not saying, based on the above, that it's common practice; I genuinely hope it's not.

But few things are as likely to get you proved wrong as "always" and "never".

 

[Lightknight]

Hmm, I wonder how mad Jim would be if someone photoshopped a copy of Aliens Space Marines in place of the ps4. I assume he'd turn into Voltron and slay the offending photoshopper.

Clearly you missed the point the the embargo was set to the release date. No one could see those crappy reviews until after their pre-order went through. That was actually the point to the down to the wire embargo.

If they didn't get copies before the game then they'd have no game before launch and the reviews wouldn't hit websites until a day or so after launch. So, I think you're pretty wrong regarding embargoes. Yeah, they're bad but they're not as bad as reviewers not getting the games prior to release to have something prepared by day one at least.

 

[00DUMB]

I stopped watching Jimquisition weeks ago, maybe a couple months, but it wasn't because I didn't like them. It was primarily because several episodes were about things I knew about, and most of Jim's opinions are also my own. This was the first episode I've watched in a long while, and I'm really happy to see your sense of humor has not changed one iota. Keep gettin' 'em, Jim.

 

[SirCannonFodder]

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for [strong]all[/strong] of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

So, what's to stop a self-employed chef being given free knives by a company? There are even plenty of self-employed chefs who are paid by knife companies to endorse the knives. Your point simply isn't true. Those aren't the only two ways a person doing a job can get their tools. They may have even inherited them from their grandfather.

Why would the client of a self-employed hair stylist care if the stylist was given a free curling wand? Plenty of hair salons get discounts to stock certain brands of product.

I guess I am missing the point. Would you care to explain what it is?

 

[MortisLegio]

Wait. Blacklisted by Konami? HOW?

There is a Jimquisition episode called Konami. The road to blacklisting begun there.

It ended when I pretended to be the newly crowned head of Konami's PR department for a day.

All I can say is... Well done, Well done.

OT: Why would reviewers have to buy their own games/movies/music/whatever? Does a cop have to buy his own gun? I know I would be pissed if I had buy everything I need for my job.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

...

After all that... I am less disturbed by Jim showing that he's been given a facilitating PS4... And more disturbed by the fact he licked it.

...Just... Eww... Unnecessary.

Then again... That's kind of the point isn't it? It's unnecessary for journalists to show off that way, since the journalist reviewer's job is to sit down, scrutinize the hell out of the subject's good and bad sides, and for the love of all that is holy, don't make it about you.

It's funny that this one little gag essentially sums up the entire stance so easily.

Well done Jim, you have again managed to find a perfect metaphor for the entire situation in the most uncomfortable manner possible... A Tactic that makes it very hard not to see your point.

 

[Nurb]

While I don't expect reviewers, It still doesn't change the fact the larger sites like IGN and Gamespot are extremely less critical on bigger titles. Rome II and Machine for Pigs off the top of my head for example.

Their scores below 8 seem reserved mostly for indie titles that don't give them gift packages or ad revenue

 

[Evonisia]

Did someone want a gif?
http://gifti.me/i/cMPhJWB3.gif

Yes! Thank you, good sir. I can now watch this endlessly, and it will serve as my recovery from the Aliens Colonial Marines blow up doll.

 

[senordesol]

Perhaps you missed the "self-employed" part in their post? Regardless, in almost every other profession people either buy their tools or have them provided by their employers. Why should games journalism be any different? Unless the games companies providing them with games and consoles and flights are their employers?

Well, that makes it completely irrelevant, then. If you're self-employed, you pay for [strong]all[/strong] of your expenses, not just tools.

Do self-employed cooks even exist? the whole idea of being a cook is that you work for a kitchen, which is presumably owned by somebody else. If you owned the place you cook in, then you are a business owner, a restauranteur, or a chef - even if you do some cooking, that's not primarily what your stake is.

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

The servers that run the website are tools. The computers and software used to generate content for the website are tools. If a new system or application comes out; you don't have to buy it if you can't afford it, and what you do buy you must scrutinize heavily before purchasing -lest you be left with an inferior product (perhaps you will go to various review sites to make such a determination).

Games are not tools. They are review products.

Imagine if, as a self-employed person, you had to buy NOT ONLY the best in a line of new products that have just come out mere hours ago, but also the shittiest that no consumer in their right mind would touch within mere hours of their release. Every time, year-round.

There's the primary difference. That is why getting games for free is not 'bad jarnalizm'. Your site has to review every game when or before it comes out because, otherwise, it's old news and you won't get traffic.

 

[medv4380]

Hmm, I wonder how mad Jim would be if someone photoshopped a copy of Aliens Space Marines in place of the ps4. I assume he'd turn into Voltron and slay the offending photoshopper.

Clearly you missed the point the the embargo was set to the release date. No one could see those crappy reviews until after their pre-order went through. That was actually the point to the down to the wire embargo.

If they didn't get copies before the game then they'd have no game before launch and the reviews wouldn't hit websites until a day or so after launch. So, I think you're pretty wrong regarding embargoes. Yeah, they're bad but they're not as bad as reviewers not getting the games prior to release to have something prepared by day one at least.

Actually, not getting the review copies would be better. When movie critics don't get review screenings everyone knows in advanced. It's become a red flag that the movie is known to be bad by the studio, and they want to reduce damage from critics. The act of doing it actually causes a backlash unless the film has a cult following, like horror movies.

In the case of Aliens all the critics were aware for a month that the game was bad, but couldn't inform anyone due to the embargo of Feb 12, 2013 at 8PM [http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/332038,aliens-dead-space-3-and-the-review-embargo-conundrum.aspx].

What would be better is a Publisher like Sega who can get away with setting an embargo to the day of and after pre-orders are proceed get Black Balled by ALL Game Journalists. If a movie studio did that the critic Society's would do something. Critics don't like the movie coming out before their review can be read because a significant amount of the audience already knows if it's good or bad due to word of mouth. It waists the critics time watching the movie, and writing the review. This is why Movies that are screened Months in advanced have reviews a week or two before release. However, if a movie critic reviews a month in advance of the film they get black balled by their Union because breaking an embargo gives you the jump on your competition as well.

Game Critics can't do it because they are actively dependent on the Publishers, and Developers. They aren't organized like their contemporary counterparts so they can't collectively punish groups like Sega that have abused the system.

 

[SirCannonFodder]

You're missing the point, in either case, the person doing the job either pays for their tools or has their employer pay for them. Why should games journalism be any different?

So, what's to stop a self-employed chef being given free knives by a company? There are even plenty of self-employed chefs who are paid by knife companies to endorse the knives. Your point simply isn't true. Those aren't the only two ways a person doing a job can get their tools. They may have even inherited them from their grandfather.

Why would the client of a self-employed hair stylist care if the stylist was given a free curling wand? Plenty of hair salons get discounts to stock certain brands of product.

I guess I am missing the point. Would you care to explain what it is?

Because the purpose of a games reviewer is to provide (as unbiased as possible) advice on whether or not a game is worth buying. If the reviewer is beholden to the company whose games they are meant to be reviewing for the basic tools needed to do their job (such as the console they have been given as a "gift", or an early exclusive they need for readership, etc), then they have a vested interest in giving the game a positive review, meaning the reader has no way of knowing if the review is genuine or not. And even if the reviewer does give their genuine opinion, that opinion could be influenced (consciously or not) by feelings such as gratitude or indebtedness to the game company. In short, having to depend on the people you're criticising taints the whole process. There's nothing wrong with taking a review unit, reviewing it, and then either returning it or disposing of it, but it's when things like these free PS4s, or being threatened with blacklisting, happen that the reviewer's integrity becomes undermined.

 

[Oskuro]

Cry as many do about their concerns regarding bribery and unfair reviews... All I can really hear is "Waaaaa! I want that stuff for free and now! Waaaa! No fair they got it and I did not! Waaaa!"

 

[Brockyman]

Am I the only one who thinks that Jim has lost quite a bit of weight since he first started his show?? Keep it up Jim.

Thank you! I've been taking steps to do so. Watching episodes from months ago is a shocker to me!

I noticed too! Good Job Jim! I've been trying my best to lose weight to and it can be rough with a sedentary job. Keep up the good work!