Topic: Games Journalism: Quote me accurately and I'll sue!

[NWR_insanolord]

Yeah, this site is awesome, everyone who works for it is a brilliant, extremely good looking individual, and its writing quality and moral integrity are of the highest caliber.

[Luigi Dude]

Yeah, this site is awesome, everyone who works for it is a brilliant, extremely good looking individual, and its writing quality and moral integrity are of the highest caliber.

But what if Reggie tries to bribe you with 100 million dollars? 


Would your body be ready?

[Lithium]

BTW which online sources do you fine folks trust or value the most?

I don't even bother catching up on video game news or reviews anymore, i'm more interested in podcasts and editorials. As for videogame podcasts i pretty much only listen to the NWR lineup, this site also has good editorials but i mostly read gamasutra.

[NWR_insanolord]

Yeah, this site is awesome, everyone who works for it is a brilliant, extremely good looking individual, and its writing quality and moral integrity are of the highest caliber.

But what if Reggie tries to bribe you with 100 million dollars? 


Would your body be ready?

The first thing I'd do is get rid of all the ads on the site, replacing them with various photos of Reggie.

[oohhboy]

You woud have to be insane to turn down $100 Million dollars in exchange for your "gaming journalistic integrity".

NWR works because everyone who works for it goes in knowing they are doing it for the enjoyment and love of it. There is no money in it for them and I have no doubt it actually costs them money to do what they do since they buy many of the games they review.

Sure they get thrown freebies once in a while, but when they include stuff like Horsez, it isn't much of a perk.

Plus over the year it has continued to have good editorial control* and they justify the score they give. You also know it's a good reviewer when they play a bad game that results in an amusing review.

*Unless it is a Zachery Miller Breast review. The man really lost focus there for a while not that I blame him too much because BOOBS.

[NWR_insanolord]

Just a bit of correction to your otherwise excellent post, most every review we do is of a copy provided by the publisher, outside of some download stuff and almost all VC coverage. We do spend a lot of money on things like going to E3, where we have to pay for our own flights and hotels and food. (Still, I got to o to E3, which was a lifelong dream). Thanks for the kind words, though, we really do try to keep a high standard.

[Oblivion]

So what if a member of your staff had the opportunity to go to E3, but couldn't because of financial problems? SOL?

[NWR_insanolord]

Yeah, pretty much. It's happened before.

[Oblivion]

Well, ****.

[MrPhishfood]

About the Black Ops 2 reviews. I was checking out Kotaku and I noticed this comment on a Black Ops post which reads:

WolfRogers: Actually, if you go to EuroGamer, they speak about how they rejected an invite from Activision to attend a Review Party for the game, and because of that, they're not allowed to review the game until roughly a WEEK after it comes out. Apparently the terms if you wanted to release a day one review was that you HAD to attend this party thrown by Activision.

Oli the deputy editor for Eurogamer posted a comment HERE:
Our review will be a few days late, because we didn't attend a review event that was the only way for press to get access to the game in advance. Full explanation here:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-09-editors-blog-new-editorial-policies

That first link to the Kotaku post pretty much tells you which websites went to the Activision party. All I have to say is

[broodwars]

All I have to say about this story or any other similar ones is this: what is it that you want games journalism to be, and what are you willing to give up to make it happen?     Do you want games reviews available before you have to make a purchasing decision on a new game, or are you willing to wait a week or two (especially for larger titles like RPGs)? Do you want to read or hear about a game at all before its release, or are you willing to walk into a purchasing decision blind? Do you want to be able to visit your favorite websites for free with some ads along the way, or are you willing to subsidize your favorite websites to forgo advertising or review copies in exchange for hard-hitting editorial?  Are you willing to NOT buy a new game if its publisher pulls some foul stunt with the press? That's just the beginning of a series of questions gamers have to start asking themselves when it comes to these matters.

I have to side with Bob Chipman on this one: Before people start wringing their hands over the "state of games journalism", they should first look at fixing the "I want it, and I want it NOW in 5 different flavors!" State of Games Fandom. Because unless you want reporters to stoop to actual theft, they're never going to be able to do real "investigative journalism" on games that the companies who make them don't want them to do.

Writers go to the lengths they do because we won't give them any alternative that's financially viable.  We (as a community) want, no...DEMAND a never-ending stream of new information, new screenshots, new videos, etc. but we as a community aren't willing to pay the required price (both in convenience and monetary terms) to make it feasible without access and potential influence from the games industry.

It's perfectly fair and reasonable to call out bad writers and slimy situations as they occur, but bear in mind why it occurs: because despite our self-righteousness and complaining, we aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices. We wouldn't really have this industry any other way.

[UncleBob]

I'd say the Penny Arcade Kickstarter disagrees with the idea that we're not willing to pay (monetary-wise) for independent content.

I know more than once the topic has been thrown around on these forums about donating to get rid of the horrible, horrible ads that are on the site.

What needs to be done is that there needs to be "Gaming Journalism Committee" (with free and, of course, non-binding membership for all Gaming websites) that determines what is and isn't okay.  Once the major websites get on board, the publishers will start to lose power in making these decisions.

Right now, if Kotaku decides "Yeah, we're not going to agree to these terms in order to review this game.", IGN will jump at the chance, they'll get the web hits, the publisher still gets the press and Kotaku is the only one who loses.

If all the major websites make this decision in unison (and make a joint statement about what, exactly, they disagree with in the terms), then the publisher either has to change their policy or they get no press.  Right now, publishers get to enjoy the fact that the gaming media is divided and will stoop to virtually any low in order to get a scoop and a few extra ad clicks.

[MrPhishfood]

1. Do you want games reviews available before you have to make a purchasing decision on a new game
2. are you willing to wait a week or two (especially for larger titles like RPGs)?
3. Do you want to read or hear about a game at all before its release
4. are you willing to walk into a purchasing decision blind?
5. Do you want to be able to visit your favorite websites for free with some ads along the way
6. are you willing to subsidize your favorite websites to forgo advertising or review copies in exchange for hard-hitting editorial?
7. Are you willing to NOT buy a new game if its publisher pulls some foul stunt with the press?

1. Yes.
2. Yes, but I think developers will make it available one way or another even if the press wasn't given special access. They have to drum up interest in some way.
3. I would like to but its not very important.
4. Not often but yes. I am doing this with ZombiU. I have also done so with some other titles that I later regretted. New games are expensive and a game that I didn't enjoy is money wasted. I'm not made of money.
5. Yes
6. Yes though I don't see that happening. A membership only website could have its content copy-pasted easily.
7. No and it shouldn't matter if there is at least 1 credible and reliable source for reviews.

[lolmonade]

I know more than once the topic has been thrown around on these forums about donating to get rid of the horrible, horrible ads that are on the site.

Where can I donate, and how much to make it happen?  Honestly, these ads are atrocious (especially the little alien humping the air in a banana suit), and they really do worsen my experience viewing the website/forums.

[TJ Spyke]

To people complaining about ads, you can alway use an add-on like AdBlock.

There is no game journalism, and I don't really care. I want news and reviews, which is what we get. If I want journalism, I will check out a news site like CNN or MSNBC.

[broodwars]

There is no game journalism, and I don't really care. I want news and reviews, which is what we get. If I want journalism, I will check out a news site like CNN or MSNBC.

And, thus, my point is made, despite there being people who would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to have a better gaming press.

[NWR_insanolord]

Broodwars is right on the money here. It's not a great situation, but it's probably the best it can practically be given the state of the business and the demands of gamers. As with any other kind of journalism, your best option is probably to look at multiple sources to get different perspectives and cut down on the possibility of being swayed by sleazy practices, and to find a few sites that you really trust. It's very flattering to know that we're one of those sites for a good number of people.