magicmonkeybars said:
I call bullshit Mr. Pitts.
If you're looking for someone to blame look no further than yourself.
(snipped the rest because my post was already far, far too long).
Strangely, It would appear that you at least grasp the relationship when you say ". . . everyone is interdependant[sic] on each other consumers on reviewers, reviewers on advertizing[sic] that publishers use to sell games to consumers". In spite of this apparent understanding of the basic relationship between the key parties involved (that is the consumer, the developer, the publisher and the reviewer), you choose to lay the blame
entirely on the shoulders of one party: the reviewer.
Though there are certainly other parties in play, I will, for the purposes of this argument, agree that the key players in the game production and purchase relationship are the publisher, the developer, the reviewer and the consumer. In such a relationship, if examined in general, we find that the publisher often assumes an enormous financial risk when they agree to publish a game. The developer often assumes a personal risk when they start a project. Their livelihood is, after all, often hinged on the success or failure of the game. The consumer assumes a (significantly) smaller financial risk when they choose to purchase a game as such a purchase is, very generally, not refundable no matter what the condition of the product. The reviewer assumes a professional (and potentially personal) risk when they voice an opinion about a product. If the opinion is seen as unfair, they might lose future access to the publisher or developer. If the opinion is seen as little more than a pack of lies, they stand to lose the trust of the consumer.
As we can see, each party has something at stake in this exchange, be it personal, financial or professional. If each party has a stake, one might argue that the results of such a relationship ought to be generally satisfactory for all parties. Of course, such an argument is easily proven wrong and we need to do little more than trot out any of the more famous failures to demonstrate such a thing. Since we can demonstrate that this relationship regularly results in at least one of the parties being supremely unhappy about the outcome, it stands to reason that somewhere along the way something went wrong.
Perhaps a closer examination of the relationship between the parties is in order. The publisher, the entity that very generally has the largest financial stake in a project, wants to make money. Unfortunately, lacking the mystical ability to divine the future, they must instead make their decisions based on a personal calculation of risk. To put it another way, the publisher must weigh the known cost of a project against the
theoretical revenue it could bring. If a particular kind of thing has sold well in the past, producing a similar product carries little risk. If a particular kind of thing has sold poorly in the past, funding a similar kind of thing carries enormous risk. If a particular kind of thing has never been made it carries exceptional risk as you have absolutely nothing to gauge the potential revenue upon. Reality generally demonstrates the truth of this concept. The Wii has sold incredibly well and thus Sony and Microsoft are producing new motion controllers of their own. Madden consistently sells millions of copies and thus we get a new copy each year. Guitar Hero was a smash hit and thus we get a new Guitar Hero every few months it seems. Publisher behavior, it would seem, is directly influenced by the consumer.
The consumer is the party who, very generally, assumes the least amount of risk. Most are sensible enough that they will not purchase a game if such a purchase would obviously lead to financial hardship. Because of this relatively small amount of risk, we can divide consumers into two categories: those that make an informed purchase decision and those who do not. Since those who do not make an informed purchase decision represent little more than a random force in the market, it is safe to say that we can focus entirely on the consumer who makes a fiscally reasonable purchase based upon some quantity of information. There are, of course, numerous sources of information. They can solicit the opinions of others for example. This could include asking a friend, having a friend volunteer the information freely, or seeking the opinion of a professional. They can rely on their preconcieved notion, a product of past experiences with similar products, products by the same developer or publisher, or even an advertising campaign. They could rely on some sort of objective source such as units sold. The informed and reasonable consumer has plenty of sources for information.
In my opinion, it is the users personal experience more than anything that leads to a purchase decision. If a consumer has had a positive experience with a franchise, it is reasonable to assume they are likely to buy a new iteration of the franchise. If a developer regularly produces games a consumer enjoys, they are likely to purchase some new idea produced by the developer. The opinions of others can, of course, influence the consumer. If a trusted source gives a damning review regarding a game the consumer was interested in, they are certainly less likely to purchase the game. Likewise, if a trusted source gives a favorable opinion regarding a game the consumer was unsure of, they are more likely to purchase it.
So, what part does the developer play in all of this? Truth be told, their part is simply to produce a product that a consumer is going to be satisfied with. No more, no less. If they play their part well, they are all but assured a measure of success. If they do poorly, they will quickly crumble.
That leaves only the journalist. The journalist, if one wants to be an idealist about it, serves but one simple function: to seek the truth and then report it. "But WAIT!" comes the cry from the audience. "Game journalists
review games by giving an opinion! What truth can be found in such a subjective endeavor"? Even in this case the duty of the journalist is clear enough: they must report their opinion in its entirety, without omission or alteration for any purpose. Simply put, the Game Journalist upholds the basic duty of the journalist simply by being, themselves, honest and forthright in their opinions. Certainly there are those that violate this, and such scoundrels are entirely unworthy of their station or title. Perhaps it is these villains who are responsible for the breakdown in the aforementioned relationship? One could certainly make that claim, but then they would forget that the consumer, if they wish to be informed, has a duty themselves to make a reasonable effort to ensure the information upon which they make a decision is accurate. If a journalist is honest in their opinion, if they are forthright about their various biases and influences, they would indeed be worthy of the title.
Such honesty has always come with a price tag attached. Journalists are people who seek to know the truth and then report it, but more than that Journalists are people capable of finding the truth in the first place. This fact and nothing more is what stand between the eager amateur and the professional. By speaking the truth, the game journalist risks the very access they need to be relevant and timely. By resorting to lies, the journalist undermines the credibility that draws people in to listen. The journalist therefore has always served two competing masters, both of whom have the capacity to destroy them: the public (in this case the consumer) and their source (in this case, the developer and publisher). Does this somehow excuse the journalist if they choose to spread lies? Certainly not. But it remains the duty of the audience to recognize when they have been misled in the past and to seek out a better source themselves.
Thus the relationship becomes even more simple. The publisher seeks to make money and will therefore seek to mitigate risk. The developer seeks to remain employed and thus attempts to make the best product they can. The consumer wants to exchange their money for enjoyment at a fair ratio. The journalist tells the truth as best they can so that the consumer has accurate information when it comes time to make the exchange. In a perfect world, this system would always yield a perfect result. The developer would pitch a product the consumer wants, the publisher would fund the product the consumer wants, the journalist would report on a product the consumer wants and the consumer gets precisely what they want.
And yet, we end up exactly where we left off so very long ago because we all know the relationship is rarely so perfect. So, who in the end is to blame? It turns out, if the journalists upheld their prime directive, it is all the parties
except the journalists. There are, after all, but two possibilities for an unsatisfactory outcome in this relationship. Either a game is made that the consumer should want but, for some reason, choose not to purchase or a game is made that the consumer should not want but for some reason does purchase.
Can one blame a publisher for not making a new version of a game that sold poorly? Not really. They didn't earn their billions by reinforcing failure; they earned their money by reinforcing success. Can you blame them for making and releasing a game they knew would be bad? Again, not entirely. There comes a time when losses must be cut and you salvage what you can from the wreckage. Can one blame a developer for making a great game that doesn't sell? Not really - the market is a difficult thing to judge. Who would have suspected that a silly little game with terrible graphics that involves incredibly repetitive game play like Minecraft would be so successful? Are they to blame for making a bad game? Perhaps, in the sense that such an eventuality is generally reached when they misjudge their limitations, be it time, talent, money or willingness to carry on, but even then it isn't often the developers decision to release their failure to the public as this decision is generally made by the publisher in accordance with the publisher's basic purpose and governing principles. Is the consumer to blame if they do not purchase some excellent game or another? Not entirely as there are countless reasons why they might not do such a thing. What if they purchase a bad game? The same goes if they purchase a bad game.
These publisher, the developer and the consumer are all together in this relationship. They share responsibility for the failures as well as the successes. If the journalists are worthy of the title, they share neither glory nor shame. Such is the burden of being a mediator of information and truth.
