Jimquisition: Integrity, Journalism, and Free PS4s

[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!

 

[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?

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.

And if they then return the review unit when they're done reviewing it (or dispose of it if returning it isn't practical), that's fine. Keeping it, such as with these PS4s, makes it a gift.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I approve the use of the Warframe trailer, 'The Call', cause its a Bad.Ass. trailer, not as awesome as 'The Profit' mind you, but still awesome.

and in a rare turn, both are mostly game accurate as well.


oh, right >.> the stuff Jim said >.>

I'm going to agree. Both sides are at fault here, but at the same time.... gamers will ***** about anything they think is 'unfair', so I generally consider it a wiser course to just not even acknowledge them in such instances.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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.

How does getting a free PS4 make the reviewer beholden to Sony, and require them to give a positive review? And how is that any different to a chef getting free knives?

I'm also wondering who bribed you to claim that that self-employed people in other industries only have two ways of obtaining tools - by either buying them themselves, or having their employer buy them? Who are you beholden to that would make you lie like that, instead of being objective and impartial?

 

[Muspelheim]

Intensive Jimlick Unit. That is a remix that should exist.

Now... I'm afraid it's simply going to have to be a choice. If you want immediate reviews of new releases, you will either have to accept that the publishers technically gifted a review copy, or simply stick to companies who can afford to purchase in every new release at launch. Or alternatively, only review independant games with lower prices.

It's easy to be jelaous of journalists recieving their games for free, certainly, but it's the best arrangement to make sure there are plenty and recent reviews available. If everyone had to purchase every review copy, something would have to give.

 

[Draconalis]

So, remind me never to touch anything you own, Jim...
Ever.
Snippet
Now to drink the memories away...

Ah... I see. We have to remind you, because you're going to drink yourself into a stupor.

There is an issue here though... either we tell you... and you wonder why, then you look it up... or we inadvertently trigger your submerged memories.

But... if we don't remind you... you might touch his stuff and get cooties... or the gays or something.

I'm stuck here. I wanna help... but how is best?

 

[LordMonty]

Captain Jim 'Obvious' Sterling, not complaining but gee these things really seem hard to not get your head around but hey keep up the good abuse... I mean constructive abuse... wait no... critizium? meh whatever it amususes me so keep it up

 

[TreuloseTomate]

That's the reason why you pick and choose reviewers you can trust and who share your taste.

 

[Brockyman]

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.

And if they then return the review unit when they're done reviewing it, that's fine. Keeping it, such as with these PS4s, makes it a gift.

The PS4 these reviewers are given are probably required to last the entire system cycle, and if they break it they have to replace it on their own dime.

I really don't know how it works, but it's a practice that really is fair, and I haven't seen really any issues so far. Some reviewed Knack poorly while others really liked it. It seems like the normal and honest reviews I've seen before. The "Blue Light of Death" stories have been covered well (if not a little too much) as well. If they were afraid of offending Sony, those would have been swept under the rug quickly.

Bottom Line is you have to buy what you like. I like reading/listening to the reviews from many outlets, but I buy what I want to buy because I think it looks cool. Unless all the reviews are completely lousy (as in controls don't work, or the game is broken), then I get what my preferences dictate.

 

[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.

And if they then return the review unit when they're done reviewing it, that's fine. Keeping it, such as with these PS4s, makes it a gift.

Why return the review unit? Most product reviewers of low-ticket items don't return the products sent to them; mainly because it's pain in the ass and would just get thrown away as 'used'.

Food critics don't vomit their meal back onto the plate. Book critics don't send back manuscripts publicists and authors send to them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Similarly, Prime World: Defenders( The tower defense game) had no review codes has a pretty low Metacritic score but I actually thought the game was pretty fun for the $10 it cost.

Except it's more likely the other way around. Game companies avoid review copies for games they know will be poorly received.

Besides, if "I thought it was better than it was rated" was grounds for any sort of assertion, I'd call the entire gaming industry corrupt for not liking Dynasty Warriors. Sans Jim, of course.

The wquestion is, "are these games poorly received because they aren't given away, or are they not given away because they'll be poorly received?" Reason points to the latter. Publishers will try and lock down a bad game by any means necessary. It should be a dead giveaway of a lack of their faith in a game that something's up.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That little "clip compilation" made me want to chew my own head off.

"[Reviewers] should be forced to pay for their own games and consoles."

You go ahead and try it, chuckles. Mein Gott, some people have such an entitlement mentality. "They are LUCKY to be providing a service to us! They should meet our ridiculously high and entirely arbitrary standards!"