They keep embargos for the very reason you just said… throwing away relationships. The problem is, they shouldn’t. They’re not PR outlets for the devs and pubs, and it really shouldn’t be acceptable that any of them are beholden to them in anyway. Aside from some reviews like the Movie industry also has, they should have a lot more flexibility and still be able to work in the industry than they have.
Yeah in general I agree. But like I say I also can see that there is a fairness aspect to other game press folks. I mean if everyone broke embargoes then I guess it would be a race to see who posts first to get the “scoop” like in those old movies where you see them fighting over the phone to call it in?
Embargos are dumb.
Fortnite for Switch was the world worst kept secret. Everyone knew before E3.
I can understand a embargo that ends 1 month before release. But we are getting embargos that last hours before games are relased… In a world where preorders exists.
People is buying games withouth the information what these games really have. Is not ideal.
But If I am realist, maybe they make a lot of sense for the people involved.
I agree - only exception is if the publication expressly agrees, under NDA or otherwise, to keep silent and access the information through that manner (as opposed to just getting leaked info from an insider). You also obviously can’t pay an insider for info and induce them to breach their own duty of confidentiality.
I think some leaks by publications could be intended to cause harm - the Fallout 76 leaks are interesting as an example, as the info on the game being an online multiplayer survival genre game could hurt the game’s reception if it turns out it is not, or not just, that type of game. But the early rumours may have turned off a lot of fans of the single player games in the series who perhaps prematurely concluded that the game wasn’t for them based upon those early rumours – if that happened, given the already strained relationship between those publications and Bethesda the leaks and associated spin could look malicious, even though they were unlikely to have been intended for any purpose other than to get an early scoop.
I agree that this happens, but I think it happens too often.in this industry.
False information isn’t ideal for anyone, but it happens. It’s always going to happen. I understand why the devs and pubs want to control the information that comes out, but they shouldn’t be able to. They have too much control, to much sway by punishing and blocking people who don’t work as their extended PR firm. This idea that they can throw out hype and then hit the breaks on anything else doesn’t seem like it should be something they can easily do. If they want to tell their employees not to say anything and an anonymous source tells them anyway, so what? Welcome to the rest of the world.
Our gaming news outlets are too weak and beholden do their source material.
The thing is, the gaming press got themselves into this, first by establishing itself as a collection of hype machines and buyer’s guides, then never doing enough to move away from that initial purpose. Now they’re trying to both be hype machines and act like journalists, but are too beholden as the former to their corporate overlords to do anything that could possibly endanger them, like write about poor working conditions or properly criticize anything. To act like they should break free from their shackles and violate the industry’s unwritten rules is like saying these sites should shut themselves down, because that’s effectively what this sort of thing results in, particularly in a case like this, where it wasn’t done for any noble pursuit, but simply to get extra clicks.
Any hobbyist media is going to have synergistic relationships with the companies that they’re covering, but I think the current gaming media does a pretty good job of not letting that influence their coverage in prejudicial ways.
There can be an agenda behind leaks just as there’s an agenda associated with controlling the unveiling games, and the gaming media should handle either situation professionally. When I ran my gaming site/column, a lot of what I published was based upon undisclosed information, and yet I maintained a very good professional relationship with game developers because I was fair and accurate - I leaked that Fallout 3 was on the East coast, for instance, and a bunch of news relating to the Ultima series.
I was more likely to run into problems with troubled companies (like Sir-tech Canada, developer of Wizardry) than the more professionally run companies. I don’t blame companies for wanting to control the flow of information of their own products though and not assist people who hinder that process - that’s a reasonable expectation and publications have to make their own decisions on costs/benefits. For that Fallout 3 info, for instance, without talking to anyone else I made the decision to just say that the game was set on the “east coast” rather than identify Washington DC, since I thought that was still interesting disclosure for gamers but still left the company with additional setting details to disclose. I thought that was a good balance between disclosing some interesting new info without completely supplanting the company’s ability to surprise with additional setting details, but other people may have drawn the line differently.
I completely disagree with this. I think most of our gaming media is still star struck and such fans that they have to go the extra mile to even approach being critical and the only time they are really critical is when they feel it’s safe to be critical. Gaming is notorious for their crunch time and lay-offs. There is nothing unsafe about pointing that out every couple of years. And that’s before they get punished for doing something a dev or pub doesn’t like.
You look at how they approach indie titles, the ones trying to get coverage, actually needing the media, and then you look at the large devs and pubs, you know the ones with banners and ads all over their websites, and there is no comparison.
If someone has a scoop, hopefully one they can verify, they should run with it. If they’re not doing that because maybe they won’t get an interview or be part of the next hype machine, that’s a problem. Their relationship with the big houses is too incestuous. And yes, they are partially to blame for that.
They also won’t get a copy in time to get a (rushed) review by the release date, which means no page views for the review and a lot less traffic overall. Once I heard that excuse and put myself in their shoes, I understood their predicament… I also got that I shouldn’t really trust in enthusiast media, because there’s no way they can be objective when the whole system forces them not to be.
That’s not to say I don’t read/listen to some honestly nice and good people in the press, it’s just that I don’t trust them.
Not sure if this counts as “journalism”, per se, but it is a wonderfully well-researched piece of criticism which goes far beyond a traditional “review”, and it helps connects real-world circumstances around Quantic Dream as a developer to the content of their game Detroit in a completely reasonable way:
It’s not a problem; it’s a choice that has consequences. The consequences can be positive or negative regardless of which choice people make. Writing about games is not a public service commitment that requires immediate disclosure for some higher purpose - they don’t need to write about games they or their readers have little interest in, and it’s understandable that they write about AAA games that generate a lot of traffic and revenue. If they do so without critically discerning, they risk backlash from their readers and ultimately their viability - I’m sure GameSpot wasn’t rewarded for its cowardly position on Jeff Gertsmann’s treatment, for instance.
There’s an audience for different approaches to writing about games. Some, like Game Informer, may be more cheerleaders than others like RPS or Eurogamer, which may be more critical in their scrutiny of games. I prefer the latter approach, but I also like the advance previews that Game Informer seems to get so I’m happy both exist. Other people may like RPS or Kotaku for covering more indies than other publications. Others may like Eurogamer for providing better coverage of European RPGs, etc. Some people may just like specific writers regardless of who they write for - some people may hate reading reviews and just want to watch Let’s Play videos. There’s nothing inherently wrong or deceptive with any of those approaches - and there’s nothing inherent right with other approaches - you just need to act professionally, do your best not to deceive or be misleading or dishonest, and have writers/editors/presenters who are capable of being informative and entertaining.
Hmm. I had a feeling the story of the game would be about the subject of robots stealing jobs, but would actually boil down to a civil rights pastiche. It would have been a much more interesting reflexion if it firmly planted the idea that, no, robots are not humans, but that being said, where do we go from here?
I don’t value the opinion of (or products created by) many in the media, but lack of talent, ability and diligence are far more likely to be the reasons I don’t value their work than concerns they’re untrustworthy for other reasons.
Agree that rushed reviews are a big problem that affects their utility, for certain. It’s the main reason I stopped reviewing - the games I liked to review, RPGs, just can’t be adequately judged in the amount of time most reviewers are allocated to review them for Day 1 reviews. But others argue that if the review isn’t available upon release then it has limited ability to help people make purchasing decisions - I don’t think that’s why most people read reviews, however.
Yeah, you’re not wrong either (and this site is a perfect example), which is another issue.
I suppose “don’t trust” is a bit strong, but it’s coming from someone who isn’t good with words, which I tried to counter with “nice and good people”. And there’s other constraints on the review texts themselves that make them less useful to me - word count, bullet points to cover, the audience it’s aimed at…
Which makes me go back the other way and acknowledge that only insane people who really care would take the job. It’s hard not to be bipolar on this.
I think if someone is part of the media, they should function like media which means there are certain standards. I am not requiring them report on specific developers, publishers or games, but if they do, they should do so with a certain amount of integrity and purpose which certainly means do not get into bed with your source material to the point where you are not doing media things because your’e scared you might not get to be part of the PR arm anymore.
I’ll go further: I don’t think people who write about games should necessarily be considered “media”, but they should still have integrity and act professionally.
I think that the incidents where they have acted otherwise tend to get a lot of attention from, at least, communities of gamers - like the examples or issues raised in this thread and the ones created here for other years.
Acting with integrity also means not breaking any conditions you have agreed to abide by, but I don’t think respectable publications should ever agree to abide by conditions that could compromise their editorial staff - I can think of several examples of how that’s something that has actually gotten better over the years:
- few, if any, publications review games at company offices any more, while that used to be at least occasional practice;
- few, if any, publications produce reviews based upon pre-gold software; and
- less acceptance of trips paid for by gaming companies for unveiling or other events.
Good post. Curious as you are a well respected game reviewer of long form games. How do you feel the rise of user reviews has impacted professional game reviews? And if it is a problem (maybe it isn’t) how would you suggest games reviewers change to add value to their work vs crowd sourced reviews?
Of course no obligation to answer if its a hassle.
Where would I find a list of these standards and who is in charge of enforcing them?
You can attend college. They have several courses on media and ethics. We’re not talking about laws; I’m sure you know that. You would also know that there have been a number of outlets that found themselves in trouble for not following some simple standard like fact checking… so… watch dog groups do.
If this is the case, they should do the standard we’re being paid by these companies do what they want so don’t take what we say as worth anything disclaimer.
That’s the opposite of what I said in the reply you quoted. As I said, they should have integrity and act professionally, and when that hasn’t been the case (as in the Gerstmann incident) they’ve rightly been lambasted.
I just think “media” is a lofty term for describing someone (including me) who writes about mushroom man and dragon games. If they’re not required to have a degree in journalism or similar credentials, my expectations are pretty low - I care about whether the writer is intelligent, sufficiently knowledgeable to discern quality and critically analyze a game’s merits, and entertaining - if they’re not those things, then they are unlikely to be sufficiently professional to be worth any attention anyway.