the hidden eagle said:
grigjd3 said:
the hidden eagle said:
grigjd3 said:
A significant portion of games journalists have become more connected to publishers and developers than gamers. This often results in a media that has a very skewed viewpoint.
And a divide as between them and their readers as well.How many games journalist flatout attacked their readers in the past year?DMc and ME3 are perfect examples of the gaming press choosing their cushy connections with the game publishers/developers over the people who keep them relevant.
If this were actual journalism then all of them would be fired for taking what is essentially bribes.
An honest assessment is that we are a commodity that the games journalists trade. Since we basically refuse to pay for the journalism ourselves, websites need to be funded by ads and if you're a games website, you're most likely customers for ad space comes from producers of games. So the customer in this trade is the game publishers and the commodity being sold is our eyes. These websites need to be nice enough to us to keep us coming back but that's like saying a lumber mill needs to be nice to trees.
And this is why game journalism is a joke,they're essentially PR for the game publishers and developers who give them ad revenue.Real journalists are supposed to be for the people and not the ones who give them money in exchange for a good article.
As a journalist (not gaming, but a community journo) I keep hearing this thing coming up that journalists are cosying up to the likes of developers. It's like someone writing car reviews then getting a car free for better reviews. Sure, a car is WAAAAY pricier, but whatever section of the industry we're in we have to be as independent as possible. No free lunches, no brown envelopes slipped under the table for "positive" stories, and most of all no screwing the people you're writing for.
Your audience depends on you to be their voice when companies take advantage, governments refuse to budge and when you're giving them consumer-related advice. Consumer journalism probably has it the worst because of all the freebies the journalists get (movie tickets, games, books, hotel stays etc) but we SHOULDN'T be for sale. If a journalist is for sale, then all they are is an advertising salesman.
We once had an American journalism lecturer visit us for a talk about trends in her country. She said a common argument where she came from was that when journalists received free stuff (some have received cars for free) they claim "It's just a gift like if a friend gives you one" - as if the companies are suddenly their friends. Because an editorial department decides on how it will manage said freebies, you could end up at a media company which relishes and welcomes them, or in one that regards them with suspicion. In other words, there are few laws, if any, which govern that behaviour. If the newspaper's editorial team says it's okay for you to accept free games, movies, trips or cars, then the journalists gladly benefit from them. They then become a PR extension of whichever company gives them free stuff and if the editor-in-chief is okay with it (they could be cashing in too) then what should be unbiased voices soon start to sound exactly like company PR talk.
In the case of games, they are entertainment media. This means that scoring a free game is a bonus when they cost $60 a pop. Journalists aren't earning top dollar for their work (some have to scrape by on meager salaries) so much like a corrupt police officer or teacher will be tempted by a bribe, journalists see an opportunity to score a salary and some freebies on the side. Legally there is nothing wrong if the editorial department is okay with it (otherwise it can be seen as some form of fraud or misrepresentation), but morally it is a sticky area you shouldn't get yourself...uh...stuck in. Your reputation as a journalist and as a media company is at stake. How many games have been praised by online reviewers only for gamers to express opposing views? On Metacritic I often see games that are given 8 or 9/10 dropping by a point or two by the gamers. I am not saying there is always bias, but which tends to give a more honest account? The actual consumers or the reviewers who are far closer to the corporates than your average gamer?
MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!
I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.
People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.
But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.
There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
This. I agree here because while consumers should do everything in their power to make sure they are educated about what they are purchasing (research online, asking second or third sources for input and understanding what you're paying for), often companies take advantage of peoples' ignorance. Punishing the consumer for falling for a company's dirty tricks, clever marketing or downright lies is victim blaming. You don't HAVE to buy their product but there are too many cases of people being ripped off because companies are aware of how to market even terrible products to boost sales. They know they're selling bricks made of shit, but they'll market it like it's natural and healthy for the environment, for example.
Again, I have little sympathy for someone buying something blindly - as in they are ignorant on the subject and didn't bother to find out more - it still does not excuse a company selling bad products or conning people out of their money. Companies do it all the time and when consumers realise they've been screwed it can sometimes be a laborious process to get their money back. If however you had nowhere else to turn to (elderly who want to buy a computer, for example, and there aren't family members or friends who can help) and you got screwed, then I feel for you.
No matter how nice the people in the store are, they are not your friends. They are trying to make money and they are encouraged to be nice so you can trust them. They don't care about you no matter how much they smile and seem cheerful. In fact, even when you are rude and difficult they will put up with it for your cash. You could practically throw a tantrum in the store and they will try to accommodate you as long as you buy their product. The difference is when a company grows to such a degree that they don't even bother showing any care. This is the case with large corporates. Once they don't HAVE to be nice, they stop because they're making too much money anyway - they're showing their true colours. Do you think EA cares what you think? They will only be "nice" when it affects the bottom line.
We used to be able to trust game developers more than this, though. Perhaps we the gamers are to blame for allowing this shenanigans to happen in the first place...