reviewers getting paid to give good reviews

[laggyteabag]

"A game that I don't like got high review scores. They must be paid off!"

Also, who ever listens to Metacritic user scores? Anyone and their mums can rate on that, and it is very prone to just being review bombed and people giving games extreme scores for no good reason.

Besides, just because reviewer A, B and C like game X, doesn't mean that reviewer D has to share the same feelings for it.

 

[Velociferocks]

Another example not limited to ign would be Battlefield 4.That game also was broken at launch yet got great glowing reviews from big and popular sites like ign and gamespot.

At launch, and for along time afterwards, it was indeed broken. Few reviewers played at or after launch though, they played it in controlled environments set up by the publisher where there where no apparent issues. I'm just saying that sometimes reviewers are oftentimes as ignorant to the problems as everyone else, and there might be nothing they can do about it.

 

[Random Fella]

It's pretty clear that bribing occurs in the game reviewing industry, especially with big names such as IGN.
But I doubt you'd be able to find proof of it, since understandably the reviewer and game creators wouldn't want people to know that their reviews are biased.
But really, anyone who reads IGN review scores or Metacritic scores deserves to waste their money on crap games that have high reviews from those sites. People should really know better.

 

[shrekfan246]

It's pretty clear that bribing occurs in the game reviewing industry, especially with big names such as IGN.
But I doubt you'd be able to find proof of it, since understandably the reviewer and game creators wouldn't want people to know that their reviews are biased.

Do you really, truly, honestly think that something like the biggest video game reviews site on the internet being directly paid to give a game a higher score would not eventually get out?

It would be the biggest news story any nerd-centric website could ever hope to cover. And publishers/games journalists are notoriously terrible at keeping secrets.

The argument of "well, they're running ads!" doesn't hold much ground either, because the reviewers have absolutely nothing to do with what ads are displayed (and in fact, most of the time none of the editorial staff are involved). If a reviewer becomes biased toward a game because their website is displaying ads for said game, they're a pretty terrible reviewer. As far as biased publications go, the Gerstmann thing is the only story that has ever held any actual weight (Keighley is debatable, but as far as I know he never reviewed Halo 4) and that was nearly eight years ago now; to say nothing of the fact that Gerstmann was fired for actually being a good, honest reviewer who didn't inflate the review he gave of a bad game.

 

[NPC009]

There was a Cracked article where they interviewed a game developer [http://www.cracked.com/article_20727_5-reasons-video-game-industry-about-to-crash.html], and he talked about publishers gaming the scoring system. But I wouldn't call what he's describing straight-up bribing reviewers for good scores, but buttering them up with events, ad revenue, and publicity if you say something nice that they put on the box.

This is something that does happen, but maybe not as often as some might think. Triple A publishers like to pamper game journalists at events and such, maybe even organise something themselves. Goodie bags are pretty basic (and you get tired of them rather soon - there are only so many black t-shirts with game related art anyone could ever want or need), as a snacks and drinks. The real draw are things like getting a chance to talk to game designers, maybe even meeting your heroes.

To be honest, I don't think stuff like this has much of an effect as there's usually some time between events and reviews. There's something else big publishers do and that's organising ideal gaming settings for critics. A company as big as EA may gather some reviewers, put them in a nice hotel and let them play that new online shooters for a weekend. On their own exclusive servers, of course, save from lag and other nastyness. Please not that this is the exception. This is something the big boys pull and they don't want to 'invest' in just about any publication/critic. Most publishers are perfectly happy just sending out download codes.

(Frankly, I hate going elsewhere to review stuff, even if it's just a day trip to a nearby office. Home sweet home is the best place for gaming as far as I'm concerned.)

I don't quite agree with the promise of publicity, though. There's usually atleast an editor-in-chief between a critic and a game publishers. We get a download code (or address), play the game and write the review. Editors do the rest (and the ones I worked with were always on their writers' side). Independent critics are the exception, though. I recall Total Biscuit getting so tired of all the advances from publishers he closed his post-office box.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

It's shaky evidence, not proof.

You really can't account for IGN's awful taste.

 

[Parasondox]

Are we going in full circles now? Seems to me this has been brought up before, which started you know what, got forgotten about and no back again.

People are running out of things to complain about aren't they?

 

[Roboshi]

I think the fact that some reviewers have been "blacklisted" for giving "overly unfavourable" reviews speaks volumes. Jim Sterling famously blacklisted by konami for his reaction to the failing silent hill series.

I'm sure paying for reviews happened but not on a wide scale, these are huge corporations and payoffs tend to leave evidence, (though gaming journalism is still not doing anywhere near enough investigation to find anything as it is), the more likely sinareo is just simple hype. Reviewers are human too and they live in the hype we only get when we want it, they spend their lives surrounded by marketing executives and advertisers who will only speak the best of their product and that warps your perception of any product.

I think this is why more and more people rely on video reviews, where the ability to gloss over gameplay problems is very limited and noticeable.


That said; The question about this subject is an important one and should be taken seriously.

 

[rodneyy]

I'm sure some reviews are paid. Just the fact that publishers' ad revenue keeps sites going and the fact of how much publishers care about Metacritic scores, there has to be some conflict of interest with game reviewers. How much? I don't know or really care as I said I don't even pay attention to reviews. Didn't the whole Jeff Gerstmann Kane and Lynch thing prove there was shady stuff going on years ago?

this. it may not be called a bribe, no cash may change hands, but other incentives exsist. the same way bribery isnt alowed in politics but companys sure as hell spend vast sums on lobbying and by a strange coincidence the things they want to happen tend to happen.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

am i the only one who is frustrated with reviewers getting paid to give good reviews about AAA titles that are over all are half way done and have the other half being sold for DLC.I could go on a good rant bashing some reviewers and their ''reviews''but instead i want know your opinion on the whole thing and who are the reviewers who can and can't be trusted.

Example? Source? Proof? Anything?!

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Game reviews are at a point where they are rather useless as every game is 7+/10. I don't ever pay attention to game reviews, I get more information just watching unedited gameplay of a game and judging for myself.

I'm sure some reviews are paid. Just the fact that publishers' ad revenue keeps sites going and the fact of how much publishers care about Metacritic scores, there has to be some conflict of interest with game reviewers. How much? I don't know or really care as I said I don't even pay attention to reviews. Didn't the whole Jeff Gerstmann Kane and Lynch thing prove there was shady stuff going on years ago?

But again this is nothing surprising or anything. Movie studios pay for fake reviews for some reason even when the audience doesn't care how well a movie scores anyways (like Transformers). Saying there's nothing going on or most reviews are paid are 2 extremes that almost certainly aren't true, the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.

All this. Emphasis added.

While I haven't heard of money outright changing hands as a transaction, there's definitely specks of bullshit littered everywhere, what with stories of reviewers being monetarily invested in the product's success, being close friends with the dev, being buttered up with free flights and a hotel, etc, etc. That's not to say this is a constant thing, but it does happen every now and then.

The only "reliable" information you can get before buying a game is to look at the gameplay. This can be supplemented by looking at reviews from multiple sources that you think look trustworthy.
And I say "reliable" with quotation marks because the finished product usually looks a lot shitter than what's presented before release.

 

[lacktheknack]

now i will admit it isn't solid proof but it is proof

This right here, guys. This right here is everything that's wrong with fans, politics, industry, and anything else that is supposedly involved in shady dealings: People think this.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

now i will admit it isn't solid proof but it is proof

Wow. If this site had signatures on our posts, that would make a hilarious one.

 

[Sarge034]

Snip

Snip

So, for you two in particular.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

So, I remember a few years back IGN got busted for legitimately taking bribes but I'll be damned if I can't find the story. I want to say it was MW2 or something, like I said been a while. And then there was the IGN editor, Kristine Steimer, who gave a very positive review of Dragon Age 2 and then got hired on at Bioware shortly thereafter. Also, Jessica Chobot in ME3 while also working concurrently for IGN.

Spoiler: For comedic value

But what do you folks feel about bribery in the review industry as opposed to simply being paid off? The fear that if you don't appease the publishers, even if they didn't ask you to, that they would withhold their games from you in the future? Jim Sterling confirmed he was black listed by Konami for giving their games shit scores and reviews. And how about the free promotional swag that gets handed out, not equally, but tiered depending on how important you are as a reviewer? Or the threat of pulling ad revenue from places that don't look favorably at their games? We can theorize about the conspiracy of reviewers being paid off all day, but I know for a fact I've seen these strong arm tactics in play. And I'd bet they are the primary way publishers force their will as it's not illegal.

 

[tippy2k2]

So, for you two in particular.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

So, I remember a few years back IGN got busted for legitimately taking bribes but I'll be damned if I can't find the story. I want to say it was MW2 or something, like I said been a while. And then there was the IGN editor, Kristine Steimer, who gave a very positive review of Dragon Age 2 and then got hired on at Bioware shortly thereafter. Also, Jessica Chobot in ME3 while also working concurrently for IGN.

Spoiler: For comedic value

But what do you folks feel about bribery in the review industry as opposed to simply being paid off? The fear that if you don't appease the publishers, even if they didn't ask you to, that they would withhold their games from you in the future? Jim Sterling confirmed he was black listed by Konami for giving their games shit scores and reviews. And how about the free promotional swag that gets handed out, not equally, but tiered depending on how important you are as a reviewer? Or the threat of pulling ad revenue from places that don't look favorably at their games? We can theorize about the conspiracy of reviewers being paid off all day, but I know for a fact I've seen these strong arm tactics in play. And I'd bet they are the primary way publishers force their will as it's not illegal.

Both those situations should then be made the stories.

People keeping using IGN as the poster child for all these shady practices but is there one person here that actually uses IGN? IGN has become a punch-line for game journalism for a reason. Anyone who actually pays attention to the gaming industry know that IGN is a joke and the people who don't pay attention to the gaming industry are not people you're going to be able to talk to anyway since...well...they're not paying attention.

Frankly, I think that the "strong armed" thing is far far FAR rarer than people believe it to be. If it was as rampant as people seem to believe, why are there EA games getting hammered (even on sites like IGN)? If EA is strong-arming a site into giving a good review for Dragon Age 2, why did they decide not to strong-arm on a game that would likely need a lot more help to sell like EA Sports UFC (ironically a 6.8 on IGN with a 7.0 user rating)?

But for fun, let's say that strong-arming is rampant and ensnares all gaming websites as we know it. I know it's easy for me to say that when I have no skin in the game but if Publishers are attempting to strong arm you into giving their games good grades, THAT shouldn't be buried like they seem to be. Put that information out there and force the Publisher's to deal with it. When one or two people (like Sterling) speak out, it can get swept away. If all the journalists fought back...

EDIT: I got into a nice roll in there with the strong-arm thing but I did want to address the "free swag" thing but didn't want to break my flow I had. That is one aspect that I do wish that game reviewers would realize make them look really bad (whether it's affecting their scores or not). I don't mind the "fly to our headquarters" to review the game so much since that is part of their job and if the Publisher won't send them the games, they can come to the games but when you see goody bags at conventions filled with free specialized consoles, iPads, and other really expensive stuff, that is going to raise eyebrows. Personally, I think that's starting to catch-up with game reviewers as that seems to be something that a lot of them "fight back" against by either not accepting it or giving it to Child's Play for charity auction.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I think it would be silly to outright say it doesn't happen (in some form anyway). The industry is careful though, so outright proof is somewhat rare. It's what has lead me to mostly taking my reviews from Angry Joe, Total Biscuit, and Jim Fucking Sterling, son. They come across as a lot more consumer oriented than many other reviewers. I don't always agree with them, but I always have the sense that they value their viewers/readers a lot more than many others.

For actual proof that hasn't been mentioned yet: http://www.reaxxion.com/3829/the-solved-mystery-of-gamespot-journalist-jeff-gerstmanns-firing I'm sure many of you remember this. No, it's not outright bribing, but it's pretty despicable.

Edit: Seems that someone (multiple someones actually) already beat me to that.

 

[sXeth]

I don't really buy into the grand conpiracy theory, when its much more easily explained by reviewers having their own personal judgements (whether profressional or otherwise). IGN just uses the dumb 7(rarely 6)-10 scale, so yeah, everything there gets overrated in the grand scheme of actual 1-10 scale, and their reviewers seem to be the "casual COD-bro" (for lack of a better description) type, often at odds with the wider gamer community. On the inverse side, I've found myself annoyed at some of the "indie" reviewers who can't seem to give a decent review of a game, instead choosing to ramble on about the business practices, DLC, whether a new console generation was needed, how terrible sequels are, etc.

AAA vs Indie bias is probably a big personal irk, as it goes both ways. I've enjoyed stuff on both sides, but I've played some crap on both sides too. Oddly, the indie side seems to get the inflated ratings on minimal gameplay, or outright buggy junk (Apotheon on PS4, which is an unplayable sludge-framerate mess, for instance, gets 7.5 on metacritic)

 

[Sarge034]

Both those situations should then be made the stories.

People keeping using IGN as the poster child for all these shady practices but is there one person here that actually uses IGN? IGN has become a punch-line for game journalism for a reason. Anyone who actually pays attention to the gaming industry know that IGN is a joke and the people who don't pay attention to the gaming industry are not people you're going to be able to talk to anyway since...well...they're not paying attention.

Two words, fox news. Doesn't matter how fucked something is if it's loud enough. (disclaimer- I hate all news outlets) But seriously, was Enron the only investment firm to ever embezzle? No, they're just the ones who were stupid enough to get caught. Who's to say this is any different?

Frankly, I think that the "strong armed" thing is far far FAR rarer than people believe it to be. If it was as rampant as people seem to believe, why are there EA games getting hammered (even on sites like IGN)? If EA is strong-arming a site into giving a good review for Dragon Age 2, why did they decide not to strong-arm on a game that would likely need a lot more help to sell like EA Sports UFC (ironically a 6.8 on IGN with a 7.0 user rating)?

But for fun, let's say that strong-arming is rampant and ensnares all gaming websites as we know it. I know it's easy for me to say that when I have no skin in the game but if Publishers are attempting to strong arm you into giving their games good grades, THAT shouldn't be buried like they seem to be. Put that information out there and force the Publisher's to deal with it. When one or two people (like Sterling) speak out, it can get swept away. If all the journalists fought back...

What you're asking for is journalistic integrity. It's a very chicken and egg situation, if they all had integrity this wouldn't be an issue. But I'll play. How do you prove that? How do you come out and prove they're trying to strong arm you?

EDIT: I got into a nice roll in there with the strong-arm thing but I did want to address the "free swag" thing but didn't want to break my flow I had. That is one aspect that I do wish that game reviewers would realize make them look really bad (whether it's affecting their scores or not). I don't mind the "fly to our headquarters" to review the game so much since that is part of their job and if the Publisher won't send them the games, they can come to the games but when you see goody bags at conventions filled with free specialized consoles, iPads, and other really expensive stuff, that is going to raise eyebrows. Personally, I think that's starting to catch-up with game reviewers as that seems to be something that a lot of them "fight back" against by either not accepting it or giving it to Child's Play for charity auction.

But it's just another thing that adds up to the suspicion. That's the most damning thing in these situations is distrust reinforced with known shady behavior.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Regards proof.......

I work several jobs and have done for years, I just like to keep busy and want to semi-retire at 40-45. One of these jobs has been heavily involved with the entertainment industry, and thus the mainstream media (uk newspapers and mainstream shelf magazines being my main port of contact).

I can 100% tell you that some reviewers of other forms of entertainment write reviews ONLY based on how much they are paid and nothing else. I know a Sheffield based music journalist that literally does not write one single positive review unless he gets paid by said artist/management to write what they want him to write. Sometimes he'll ask them to submit a review, than tweak and edit it to his style. I've seen reviews where he's praised an album and give it 5/5, and he's not even listened to the thing. I've seen reviews where he's lavished worship on a bands live performance, and he's never even seen them.

I've had little to do with gaming reviewers over the years, but I highly doubt that this practice is isolated to my own contacts media bracket.

By all means decide for yourselves, but it's been a common practice amongst the media for years now. I've witnessed money changing hands for paid reviews on music, and I don't see why the games industry would be any different now it's so big. My own instinct tells me games such as Mass Effect 3 weren't reviewed unbiasly that's for sure.

 

[Evil Smurf]

We have that on this site too! It's called administration paying contributors, although some say they don't pay them enough.