Therumancer said:
I probably wrote it badly in my haste. Cubicle work is the most applicable standard for this kind of work however, where someone is to use a computer or similar device for a long period of time. Remember the subject here is game reviewing, and the most practical way of doing it as a "regular job" would be to have the reviewer sit in a cubicle where the console and monitor are set up and play the game there.
How is that the most applicable environment for the job? If the job is to review games, the household is a much more appropriate one, because
that's where most people play games. they are typically not played in office cubicles. And they are not typically played on a 9-5 office work schedule.
That said, you might want to re-read my post since you seem to be picking at it devoid of the overall context, which has to do with institutional corruption, and is addressing the point that "we reviewers have to be given these things by the industry, or else the overhead would kill us" the point is that they do not. Game reviewing is a cushy job, and predictably they want to keep it cushy. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that desire of course, but the point is that things do not HAVE to be that way.
I'd hardly call game reviewing a "cushy job" - most game reviewers are not making a lot of money, for many hours of work. And it's also a job where one is constantly subject to online scrutiny and even harassment. I'd call a "cushy job" being on the board of executives of some company where you get little scrutiny, get paid millions, and have the power to control other people's lives and finances, without having to do much work.
As I pointed out, right now half the problem with reviews is that the system is fundamentally corrupt, and very few reviewers rise above that.
Well, Jim certainly does. He regularly attacks the industry. Do you think him getting a PS4 is going to change that? Do you think him working in a cubicle is going to change that?
The industry ultimately supports the media producers behind reviewers (websites, etc...) with advertising for the most part,
Well, here we get to the actual aspects that influence the industry and reviewers. And they have nothing to do with getting free games, not working in cubicles, or having "cushy" jobs. They are entirely the result of reviewers being too ethically weak to stand up against advertisers, or employees of media sites being pressured by their employers.
Hence why I mentioned that game sites hiring reviewers should ideally only accept advertising from sources outside of the gaming industry itself, say from hardware manufacturers (gamepads, headphones, mice, keyboards, etc...) or snack food companies or whatever,
That's absolutely absurd. It would be like a car magazine not having ads for cars. The other side of it is that wouldn't those game peripherals influence the reviews just like the game company advertising does? e.g:
"This game does not play well with the Logitech SuperMaestro 2000 Extreme gamepad, so I can't recommend it."
"What a fantastic game to play while slamming down a can of PWNED+++ Energy Drink?"
"Play longer with Ms. Pacgirl brand feminine hygiene products!"
Gamers come to gaming sites to see stuff about gaming. Frankly, I would find advertising other unrelated stuff somewhat insulting. I'd prefer to see ads for games, as long as the advertising doesn't influence the review. But I haven't seen any evidence of that on the Escapist. Corrupt and bought-off media is going to be corrupt and bought-off no matter who the advertiser is.
... which the reality of costs being what it is, especially if they go with secondary advertising options as opposed to those motivated to pay the most money, means that the company itself would be the one to buy and own the PS-4 and would provide it in a work space much like how another
kind of company would provide it's workers with a computer.
But that would shut out many smaller and independent voices. Only the larger media companies are going to be able to afford such work spaces - and the larger media companies tend to be the ones who are most influenced by advertising deals. Smaller sites aren't going to get huge feature advertising deals from game publishers. It's the big ones who do.
And directness of contact between industry and reviewers doesn't seem that relevant. What seems more relevant is contact with editorial staff. There are plenty of reviewers who can remain un-influenced by industry swag - but if their editor tells them to take a certain line, they might be out of a job. So, arbitrarily limiting reviewer's contact doesn't seem like a foolproof plan if the managers and editors are already corrupted.
The point here again (for the third time pretty much, even if you disagree with it, which I imagine you do), is that while the guys showing off their gifted PS-4s were being douches, the backlash is because this goes beyond that. What your looking at is a situation where there is already a lot of focus on the gaming media for having sold out to the gaming industry, with reviewers being invited to events not open to the public, and publishers largely making their money by selling ad space to the same groups they are supposed to be watchdogging. Seeing a bunch of guys handed consoles that most people can't get by the same people they are supposed to be critical of, brought a lot of things to
a head.
So, people are just looking at one small symptom that isn't really a big issue, rather than the actual problems. Pretty typical. What you're really seeing is jealousy, and it's stupid. "Oh, why does he get to play with the shiny new toys, and I don't"? It's just as asinine as people complaining that a car reviewer gets to drive the new Ferrari, and they don't - while ignoring real problems endemic to the car industry.
...but overall the whole situation is a joke compared to most people. If you read my examples I mentioned guys getting their heads potentially kicked in during alcohol shut offs (I did casino security), or being made to work on unsafe machinery (my brother, who I haven't seen face to face in many years, works in metal factories which keep getting shut down due to the death of industry where he is). A REAL job is one where you get up early, drive at your own expense (gas is not cheap, especially nowadays) to a place you hate (if it was nice they wouldn't need to pay someone)
This is a strawman. Any job, you can find one that's better or worse. Those "real workers" that you cite have it easy compared to somebody working in a sweatshop. So why don't they do a "real job" and work in a sweatshop? Likewise, there are plenty of better paid and more interesting jobs than being a game reviewer. Like being George Clooney, for example.
I also find your idea of "real work" rather pathetic. Why should a job have to be dangerous and difficult? And this is why we have things like Unions and safety regulations. Your friend
shouldn't have to be working with unsafe equipment. What do you propose - that we randomly equip game consoles with dangerous spinning blades, just to even things up with the "real workers"?
Where I worked I was lucky that they had an employee cafeteria and laundered the uniforms, but of course they didn't do most of that out of the goodness of their hearts either even if it didn't cost us anything (long story/tangent). Most people aren't that fortunate.
How is any of this relevant to the subject at hand?
