Topic: Journalism Reform is here!!! Bloggers beware!!

[BlackNMild2k1]

Now NWR has to disclose the swag & millions of dollars they make a year on favorable reviews and news coverage!!!

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act.

The notice incorporates several changes to the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkwZoioSbjzxT0I75HWiZSvFrAXAD9B502N80

FTC: Bloggers must disclose payments for reviews

PHILADELPHIA — The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.
But the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.
The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.
The rules take effect Dec. 1.

[vudu]

What about freebies or payments they get for previews?  Screen shots?  Just for being swell?

The wording seems intentionally vague and I doubt a whole lot will come of this.

[ShyGuy]

How does this affect affiliate links? I like widgets, and I recommend buying widgets from widgetworld.com, from where I receive a 10% commission for each sale I send from my website to theirs.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

COUGH IT UP, PGC

[BlackNMild2k1]

more quotes

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.

[Ian Sane]

Going after bloggers is fucking stupid.  Most bloggers are not associated with any company or anything and are effectively just some guy on the internet.  I don't think he should be put to the same standards as a professional web site.  There is a big difference between a magazine or newspaper and just some guy photocopying a newsletter.  The only difference with the internet is that it's easier to be the guy at Kinkos photocopying his newsletter.  To me the inclusion of blogs shows a misunderstanding of what a blog is.  In other words it's old fogies making rules about stuff they know nothing about.

But the internet is anarchy without fear of violence and I really like it that way.  I can also see why governments would see that as something that needs to be "fixed" with legislation.

Damn fool kids on the internets with their facebooks and ipods!!

[ThePerm]

politics? How will the U.S Government tax and regulate Canadian bloggers?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

When the "blogger" begins accepting "gifts" and establish media relations with these companies, they're crossing some sort of weird line, and no longer just some guy on the interweb.

Even the bloggers are misunderstanding what a blog is.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Zap, what's the response of the Canadian B.logging Industry?  Will they be forced to disclose their lumber to the tyrants of Amerika?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Ian, how about when professional sites have independent "bloggers" reviews posted up on their site.
Who should be accountable for paid advertisingreviews then? They are just trying to close the loop holes before they are exploited too heavily.

[broodwars]

I'm curious if these same rules will also apply to "professional journalists", so we get to see what swag reviewers at say IGN or Game Informer received when they reviewed a product.  I'm completely in favor of full disclosure, but if they're going after bloggers on this it had better apply to everyone regardless of "professional" status.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Transparency. What we all wish to see.

[Ian Sane]

Ian, how about when professional sites have independent "bloggers" reviews posted up on their site.
Who should be accountable for paid advertisingreviews then? They are just trying to close the loop holes before they are exploited too heavily.

Do you mean like user reviews or just IGN hiring someone who has a blog as a freelancer to write a review for them?  They clearly have "official" IGN reviews that one would see as IGN, the professional site's, review.  There is a clear difference between an "official" review and just something someone posts in comments for example.

Who's to stop someone from posing a user review on Amazon.com that's complete bullshit?  Who's to stop someone who worked on the game itself from creating phoney user reviews?  What level of policing are we going to take this to?  I can understand why this would make sense for professional sites but any idiot can create a blog and post a review.  How can anyone keep track of that?  There will always be a loop hole.  I think reviews on professional sites that any old joe can't just add (ie: user reviews) is all that would need to be covered.  Nobody else is a journalist and only an idiot would regard them as such.  It's the internet equivalent of Homer Simpson checking the job postings in the gag paper from the county fair.

The sheer scope of work required to regulate blogs is such that I'm quite certain that whoever decided to include blogs is some 60 year old geezer who has no idea what a blog even is.

Buying a game based on a review from a blogger is as "buyer beware" as making a purchase descision based on a user review or comments on a forum or some random guy who happens to be at Gamestop at the same time you are saying "that's a good game".

[UncleBob]

So, let's say I'm a blogger who lives in Mexico but posts on a site based in the US... do I have to disclose anything?

Now, let's say I'm a blogger who lives in California but posts on a site based in France... do I have to disclose anything?

[broodwars]

So, let's say I'm a blogger who lives in Mexico but posts on a site based in the US... do I have to disclose anything?

Now, let's say I'm a blogger who lives in California but posts on a site based in France... do I have to disclose anything?

Or to use a more immediate example, does Greg have to disclose anything when he reviews for this site?  If he doesn't, is the FTC planning on somehow fining him despite him being a UK citizen?  What a laughable concept, like the the FTC has some sort of jurisdiction on the internet.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Vigorously.

[ShyGuy]

Ill thought out, toothless legislation that costs money and is only abused. Just what the internet ordered. Every game review could require disclosure that they got the game for free from the publisher.

[Dirk Temporo]

So this is only in effect for independent bloggers and not sites like IGN and Gamespot?

[bustin98]

Is 'blog' even defined? If I post a review here in the forums am I free from disclosure, but put it on my own specific 'blog' and I'm in trouble? Or what if I post a review on the site that isn't a blog? Do I have to call myself a blogger before the rules take effect?

Lame-o. FTC has continued to fail at what they do ever since the 80s when they shut down the cartoon-toy commercials for boys' action figures.

[KDR_11k]

Seems to apply to professional websites even more than blogs. Probably funny to see IGN list all the freebies they got for reviewing something.

[S-U-P-E-R]

kill all game journalists

[ThePerm]

send them swag copies of Polybius

[mac<censored>]

I dunno, whether or not it's useful, this rule doesn't seem particularly draconian either -- and surely such disclosure is something readers would be interested in.

Since 99.9% of bloggers/forum-posters/blah/blah don't receive anything in return, it won't affect them.   Those rare exceptions who do receive something can just put "Disclosure: received free game from CrappyGamesInc plus blowjob from desperate marketing manager" at the end of their review.

Seems simple and fair to me...

[Not that it's enforceable for the most part...]

[NWR_insanolord]

Yeah, this is a good idea in theory but I don't know how practical it is in terms of enforcing it.

[bustin98]

Most of what this ruling stems from is mommy bloggers who write about the products they use in the house. It started out to be a good thing, but then the companies got wise and started sending out free stuff in exchange for favorable write-ups. Once word got out of what was happenning the community had a fit and went off to 'fix' it. And here we are today. Gamers probably don't compain at all, unless you're reading Gamespot.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

SHOW ME THE GOODS, BABY

[UncleBob]

Ill thought out, toothless legislation that costs money and is only abused. Just what the internet ordered. Every game review could require disclosure that they got the game for free from the publisher.

You know, while I disagree with the legislation (don't want to get too far into politics here), I wouldn't mind if game reviews mentioned if the person doing the review got their copy for free or if they paid for it...

[mac<censored>]

Ill thought out, toothless legislation that costs money and is only abused. Just what the internet ordered. Every game review could require disclosure that they got the game for free from the publisher.

You know, while I disagree with the legislation (don't want to get too far into politics here), I wouldn't mind if game reviews mentioned if the person doing the review got their copy for free or if they paid for it...

Seriously.  Indeed, it seems only honorable to give that information, regardless of any legislation.  Why on earth does anybody think it's a bad thing...?

[broodwars]

Ill thought out, toothless legislation that costs money and is only abused. Just what the internet ordered. Every game review could require disclosure that they got the game for free from the publisher.

You know, while I disagree with the legislation (don't want to get too far into politics here), I wouldn't mind if game reviews mentioned if the person doing the review got their copy for free or if they paid for it...

Seriously.  Indeed, it seems only honorable to give that information, regardless of any legislation.  Why on earth does anybody think it's a bad thing...?

Perhaps because some people see it as a first step in an increasing encroachment by the government into an environment it has no business legislating, an encroachment that in many ways should be a violation of Freedom of the Press if we're going to judge bloggers as reporters.  Some people also see it as an incredible double-standard to single out blogs alone in this initiative.  However, because this is the internet, the government has obviously determined that because it isn't literally "print" it does not count as Free Speech within United States jurisdiction and therefore they can do whatever the hell they want with it.  Although I agree with the ideals of this initiative I find this further encroachment of government where it doesn't belong disturbing in what it could mean for the future of First Amendment Rights and Freedom of the Press.

Oh and by the way: that wasn't an invitation to jump into the forbidden territory of politics.  That was just a simple explanation of why I have a problem with this, as could others.

[UncleBob]

As I said, I'm not keen on the legislation, but I don't get the idea that it's a bad thing to say "Hey, we got this game for free instead of spending $60 on it."

[broodwars]

As I said, I'm not keen on the legislation, but I don't get the idea that it's a bad thing to say "Hey, we got this game for free instead of spending $60 on it."

Alright, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment based on my overall cynical nature towards the masses: if a person is stupid enough to believe everything they read from one person without performing any investigative options of their own (such as reading multiple reviews by different people.  The internet's fairly good about that.), don't they deserve to get played by the industry?

[BlackNMild2k1]

I knwo that there are plenty of times that I've gone out to eat and someone else payed. Afterwards someone would ask me what I thought of the food, and depending on the what I thought, the first thing that I would say is that "it wasn't bad for a free meal, but if I had payed for it I would have been slightly disappointed after spending X amount of $$ on that."

So I really think it does make a difference not only to the person reading the review, but the person making the review, on whether what is being reviewed is worth the money that is being spent to obtain it. There are criticisms that I would only make if I had paid my hard earned money on something that might get overlooked just for the simple fact that I got it for free, and the free-ness is factored into the experience.
We have always had a saying between some of my friends, and that is "You can't beat Free". SOmetimes you'd rather pay for better, but you still can't beat free.

[UncleBob]

As I said, I'm not keen on the legislation, but I don't get the idea that it's a bad thing to say "Hey, we got this game for free instead of spending $60 on it."

Alright, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment based on my overall cynical nature towards the masses: if a person is stupid enough to believe everything they read from one person without performing any investigative options of their own (such as reading multiple reviews by different people.  The internet's fairly good about that.), don't they deserve to get played by the industry?

What happens when all the reputable reviewers got their copy for free?

You know, I occasionally act as a "spokesman" for products I like on the internet.  Sodas, games, etc.  Twice, I have had reps from the company who's product I was currently talking about contact me and offer me free product (BestSkinsEver.com and Penguin United).  Now, I love free stuff, so I agreed.  And each time, in the places where I was currently talking about how great the stuff was, I chimed in immediately to say that reps from those companies had contacted me and were sending me free stuff.  And you know what?  I don't think anyone really seemed to have a problem with that.  You know why?  Because I honestly did like (or in PU's case, LOVE) the product they were selling and my testimonials/reviews showed that I did.

If you review a game and give it an honest score, then you shouldn't be ashamed to admit you got it for free.

[broodwars]

As I said, I'm not keen on the legislation, but I don't get the idea that it's a bad thing to say "Hey, we got this game for free instead of spending $60 on it."

Alright, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment based on my overall cynical nature towards the masses: if a person is stupid enough to believe everything they read from one person without performing any investigative options of their own (such as reading multiple reviews by different people.  The internet's fairly good about that.), don't they deserve to get played by the industry?

What happens when all the reputable reviewers got their copy for free?

When all the reputable reviewers get their copies for free (and let's face it, most do) and it sways their opinion to an artificially-positive view of that product, it will be the death of journalism.  However, it is the job of the journalist (even the psuedo-journalist like the kind of bloggers this initiative is designed to impact) to be a professional and look at a product from beyond the perk and state what they actually think of it.  If we can't have that, the problem isn't with the perks but with the crop of journalists and that can only be fixed through education and discipline.  No amount of legislation is going to fix a journalist whose morals and ethics are already tainted.  And yes, I do in fact have a similar opinion of other professions.

Still, even assuming such a situation exists and you cannot trust the media it is your responsibility as a consumer to use good judgment and trust your own instincts based on what you know to be your values and tastes.  For example, let me present a game that the media in general hated last year: Alone in the Dark (the ps3 Inferno edition).  If I were to strictly follow the reviews I read on that matter, which were nearly universally-negative I would have never played one of the most surprisingly-enjoyable experiences of last year.  I, however, used my good judgment.  I studied the reviews (including quite a well-written positive review at GameCritics), read what had been fixed from previous versions, and made a call on what I believed to be a worthwhile purchase.  I have not regretted that decision since.

We're back to the issue at hand, though: my problem isn't that Full Disclosure would be invoked in the reviews, but how it would come about.  I don't like the method of someone enforcing their morals on others at the barrel of a gun.  And make no mistake, that's exactly what this is: the government using their police power to enforce their values on others.  And I'm going to stop there before I go into a full-out political rant.

[Stogi]

If I got a game for free and didn't have to worry about getting the next one for free, I'd have no problem shitting on the game. Think about it? I didn't pay for it. I didn't lose anything (except time). If it sucks dick, it sucks dick.

[UncleBob]

BW: I agree with you on the part of that we can't talk about.  But I do like when reviews include the disclosure anyway.

If I got a game for free and didn't have to worry about getting the next one for free,

That's one of the problems.  You could review Guitar Hero Areosmith and Guitar Hero Metallica with a more favorably slant because you really want Activision to send you a copy of GH5.  Likewise, if you review the games poorly, then it would only make sense to Activision to NOT send you additional GH games (you know, besides addressing your complaints within the next game).  Then, when Activision decides not to send you a free review copy, you dock another point just out of spite because you had to buy the game on release like everyone else and pay $60 for it... on the Wii. Which is bull****, why is RB:B and GH5 $60 on the Wii?

[mac<censored>]

Ill thought out, toothless legislation that costs money and is only abused. Just what the internet ordered. Every game review could require disclosure that they got the game for free from the publisher.

You know, while I disagree with the legislation (don't want to get too far into politics here), I wouldn't mind if game reviews mentioned if the person doing the review got their copy for free or if they paid for it...

Seriously.  Indeed, it seems only honorable to give that information, regardless of any legislation.  Why on earth does anybody think it's a bad thing...?

Perhaps because some people see it as a first step in an increasing encroachment by the government into an environment it has no business legislating,
[...]

I wasn't questioning resistance to the regulation as such, but rather shyguy's implication that pressure to make such disclosure is somehow undesirable.  I mean, isn't such disclosure desirable, even if a federal regulation requiring it is not (because of the larger implications)?

[Plugabugz]

Damn fool kids on the internets with their facebooks and ipods!!

Those pesky kids with their intertrons and whyfi thingymabobs!!!!

[KDR_11k]

Ill thought out, toothless legislation that costs money and is only abused. Just what the internet ordered. Every game review could require disclosure that they got the game for free from the publisher.

You know, while I disagree with the legislation (don't want to get too far into politics here), I wouldn't mind if game reviews mentioned if the person doing the review got their copy for free or if they paid for it...

It's apparently not new legislation, the FTC just found out old legislation lets them do this so they released a statement that they will.

[EasyCure]

BW: I agree with you on the part of that we can't talk about.  But I do like when reviews include the disclosure anyway.

If I got a game for free and didn't have to worry about getting the next one for free,

That's one of the problems.  You could review Guitar Hero Areosmith and Guitar Hero Metallica with a more favorably slant because you really want Activision to send you a copy of GH5.  Likewise, if you review the games poorly, then it would only make sense to Activision to NOT send you additional GH games (you know, besides addressing your complaints within the next game).  Then, when Activision decides not to send you a free review copy, you dock another point just out of spite because you had to buy the game on release like everyone else and pay $60 for it... on the Wii. Which is bull****, why is RB:B and GH5 $60 on the Wii?

We have a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here. Yes, things can go the way you described where someone like Stogi could be a dick and dock points off his review of GH:5 because Activision didn't want to send him a free copy after blasting the last few games in the series...

but he could also recieve a free copy of Red Steel 2 from ubisoft, with a motion+ peripheral and he'd give the game a good score, which is nothing wrong with it if its deserving.. but months later when they send him a free copy of some rushed out the door peice of crap game, but slip a couple of $100 bills in the dvd case.. he might call it game of the year because he'd be stupid to pass up "free money". Then on your and my end, we'll potentially see two things:

1. This reviewer is getting a free copy of the game.
2. The actual review seems a little too favorable in comparison to other reviews, which can range from mediocre to harshly negative.

Now its not necessarily a bad thing, and I actually wouldh't mind knowing if a reviewer recieved their copy free (as well as any other freebies..), but it could have some negative rammifications in an era where (at least when it comes to videogames) it's been shown that there's no such thing as journalistic integrity. In such an age, why should I NOT question your views on a product if its made clear you're recieving them free of charge?

Like BnM said, nothing beats free*

*which by the way i'll have to steal.

[NWR_Lindy]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Bear in mind that publishers have copies of games set aside for reviewers, so they aren't really losing anything in the process.  Even bad coverage (i.e. a poor review score) is better than no coverage at all.

[Ian Sane]

If I got a game for free and didn't have to worry about getting the next one for free, I'd have no problem ****ting on the game. Think about it? I didn't pay for it. I didn't lose anything (except time). If it sucks dick, it sucks dick.

This is actually a good point.  One can provide a more unbiased opinion if they didn't pay for the game themselves.  No one likes to buy a game that sucks.  It means you were essentially conned.  It's embarassing.  Most people will then try to convince themselves that they made an okay purchase.  I've done it, all my friends have done it.  You don't want to admit to yourself that you made a stupid decision.  It is so common.

One thing regarding being afraid to give a game a bad review because you might get the next one is that you shouldn't care.  If Guitar Hero 5 sucks then odds are Guitar Hero 6 will suck as well so if Activision decides not to give me a copy I should care why?

When videogame companies hide a game from the press it's usually because they know it sucks and don't want poor reviews out in time to hurt day one sales.  But when a game is really good and they know it then they're going to want every review site imaginable to cover it because they know they'll get high praise.  If it's a real GOTY candidate they're going to give you a free copy regardless of you calling out their crap because they want the positive marketing of your glowing review.

[vudu]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

I don't expect you to answer this question, but what about PixlBit?  They just started so I'm guessing they don't get all their games for free.  They might still have sources at companies that publish games for Nintendo consoles, but since they're multiplatform what do they do for PS3 and 360 games?  Buy them?  GameFly?

As I said, I'm not keen on the legislation, but I don't get the idea that it's a bad thing to say "Hey, we got this game for free instead of spending $60 on it."

Not going far enough.  $60 to you might not mean the same as $60 to me.  I demand the reviewer list their annual household income, expenses and last year's tax return.

[NWR_Lindy]

Platform makes no difference.  All Nick would have to do is say to PR person X at any company, "Hey, I'm working for a multi-platform site now, so you can send me PS3/360 games as well as Nintendo games."  That's it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Platform makes no difference.  All Nick would have to do is say to PR person X at any company, "Hey, I'm working for a multi-platform site now, so you can send me PS3/360 games as well as Nintendo games."  That's it.

Yeah, as a journalist, Nick not only built media relations between the site he wrote for and the game publisher, he also developed a reputation for himself that carries with him.

[UncleBob]

Question - should a reviewer disclose if the game came with free goodies, like soundtracks, special edition consoles, giant foam hats, hundred dollar bills, etc?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Do you want a joke "Yes" or a serious "Yes"?

[BlackNMild2k1]

I will deliver the jokingly serious "Yes"

[EasyCure]

Question - should a reviewer disclose if the game came with free goodies, like soundtracks, special edition consoles, giant foam hats, hundred dollar bills, etc?

You know what? It doesn't matter when it comes to Wii anyway cuz these blog/reviewers will half-ass the review anyway by only playing the game 2 mins past the title screen, and write it off completely because its not HD and doesn't have Online (which it does, they just didn't go thru the options) EVEN IF the freebies were:

-crack
-meth
-$100 bill sandwhich
-hookers
-ninja weapons

/thread

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Us forumers are the top-dawg journalists around here.

/real journalism is sad

[vudu]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Pale bought his own copy of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days.  I wonder how this will affect his review?  Who am I kidding?  Kingdom Hearts could murder his first born and he'd still give a 9.0.

[GoldenPhoenix]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Pale bought his own copy of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days.  I wonder how this will effect his review?  Who am I kidding?  Kingdom Hearts could murder his first born and he'd still give a 9.0.

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

[EasyCure]

We get virtually all of our games for free.  There are cases where somebody will review a game that they've bought and we didn't get a review copy, but that's pretty rare.

Pale bought his own copy of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days.  I wonder how this will effect his review?  Who am I kidding?  Kingdom Hearts could murder his first born and he'd still give a 9.0.

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

[Nick DiMola]

Chiming in on this, PixlBit is *mostly* getting games for free with the exception of a copy here or there that we've purchased with the sole intent of review.

Basically like Jon said, myself, Chessa, and Neal have been able to call contacts we've already established, informed them of our move, and ask them for multiplatform review copies.

As far as disclosure, I'd have no problem making a report available announcing each and every product we've received from publishers. Generally speaking, people deserve to know, and I think that making that information available is in everybody's best interest.

Finally, I don't feel that receiving or not receiving a review copy sways our opinion (PixlBit and NWR included) in the least. At the end of the day, all we are looking to do is provide coverage. We don't care about hurting publishers feelings and would never write a good review for a bad game just to appease someone. As former PR Manager I can attest to the fact that I had to email links to very scathing reviews published by the site, and in the end no one really had anything to say about it. They know whether the game is good or bad well before they put the game in the mail. The only instances where I've seen an averse reaction is with indy or start up developers who are unbelievably tied to their product and are unable to see past the flaws and shortcomings.

[BlackNMild2k1]

So Mr. DiMola.... how many millions would you say NWR has made from money hats from the publishers for ummm favorable reviews and things of that sort?

[Nick DiMola]

I'll let you know when I'm done counting.

[mac<censored>]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

[EasyCure]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

Nope. I'm so uninterested in anything Micky/Disney related that even killing the little bastard (or any one of those other toons) can garner my attention.

[broodwars]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

No, it isn't.

[vudu]

Finally, I don't feel that receiving or not receiving a review copy sways our opinion (PixlBit and NWR included) in the least. At the end of the day, all we are looking to do is provide coverage.

But don't you think that if you review a 5-hour game that you had a blast with--say, MadWorld--your ultimate opinion of the game is going to be influenced by whether or not you had to pay for the game?  If you dropped $50 on it you might be pretty pissed off that you beat the game in one night, whereas if you didn't pay anything for it you probably wouldn't mind quite as much.

[Nick DiMola]

Well in my honest opinion I believe the example you gave comes down to the way a game is reviewed.

It needs to be understood that there is a difference between a review and a recommendation. If you notice on PixlBit, we have both. NWR has both as well, but typically you'll need to skip to the last paragraph to read it.

A review needs to assess the game from a critical standpoint, taking cost completely out of the equation, whereas a recommendation can explore the value that a game provides. MadWorld is a great example of the differences. From a critical standpoint, it was in Neal's opinion that it was a very well made game. When looking at it from a recommendation standpoint, you can recommend that people only rent the game rather than buy it.

I think it's hard to get that perspective actually without getting the game for free. Had you paid for it, you could go the direction of Ian where you might force yourself to like it because you spent so much, or you could dislike it more because you felt ripped off. In an environment where you have nothing to gain or lose, you are able to give the most evenhanded evaluation. But I will definitely say that it's very important to understand the difference between a review and recommendation. People have tended to blur the lines of the two concepts (understandably so), but you should never base a purchase directly on a score.

[UncleBob]

A review needs to assess the game from a critical standpoint, taking cost completely out of the equation, whereas a recommendation can explore the value that a game provides.

I don't think you can so easily separate those two though. If you did, you'd have to review Virtual Console, WiiWare, and full-fledged Wii titles on the same scale.  You can't though.  No one expects to enjoy Super Mario Bros. the same way that they enjoyed Super Mario Galaxy - one's $5 and one's $50.

Look at it this way...  SMG was a great game, right?

Now, pretend it was the exact same game, but Nintendo was selling it to everyone for $5.

Do you not think that should be factored into the review?  I mean, when games are reviewed, they get compared to earlier games and similar games (including those on other systems) - can't you compare the price as a part of the quality?

In an environment where you have nothing to gain or lose, you are able to give the most evenhanded evaluation.

But we're not in a "Nothing to gain or lose" situation when publishers are giving out free copies of games.  You stand to lose future gifts if you tick off the publisher.

However, if you have to base your review of the game off the exact same criteria the majority of your audience will be viewing it from (i.e.: spending $50-$60 on it), you have nothing more to lose than your audience does.  I mean, you're going to review a game with "nothing to lose", yet those reading the review have $50-$60 to lose.

[Nick DiMola]

But we're not in a "Nothing to gain or lose" situation when publishers are giving out free copies of games.  You stand to lose future gifts if you tick off the publisher.

Like I said, this is untrue. It's a popular misconception carried by viewers of websites. In the history of my time at NWR there was literally only one time where someone was angry at our assessment of the game, and when it came down to it, they were simply unable to detach themselves personally from their product. I have had phone conversations with PR reps in which I told them about our last review and requested the next one all within the same 5 minute phone call. Believe it or not, they have an idea of what to expect as far as review scores go before they release a game.

Like I said in regards to the pricing and ramifications, that's something that's saved for the recommendation. Right now the game is $50 or $60, but what happens when it's in the bargain bin? Is the game better now that it's cheaper? By separating the two thoughts, you have a time-safe piece that doesn't need to be questioned when the price changes of the product in question.

In response to your SMG question, the price is irrelevant. Prices change, so your critical review can not reflect that. As for older games, it makes sense to merely recommend them because they aren't a new product unseen and unknown. People are only buying or not buying them, so you may as well tell them if they should or should not do so.

[UncleBob]

Did we all forget so quickly about Midway, UbiSoft and EGM?

http://www.vgmwatch.com/?p=1137

[Nick DiMola]

Well bear in mind that I didn't start writing for NWR until after that whole ordeal. So I have not encountered anything of that sort since I have been a part of the industry.

Honestly, if they would have banned us from review copies for a review they weren't happy with, so be it. Everyone has a price on integrity; mine and others at NWR can not be bought.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Ted DiBiase(The Million Dollar Man) says "Everybody has a price".

I'll just assume whatever that price is, is has not and is not likely to be met.

[Caliban]

So Mr. DiMola.... how many millions would you say NWR has made from money hats from the publishers for ummm favorable reviews and things of that sort?

I'll let you know when I'm done counting.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Loved your answer Mr. DiMola.

[UncleBob]

Honestly, if they would have banned us from review copies for a review they weren't happy with, so be it. Everyone has a price on integrity; mine and others at NWR can not be bought.

Well, of course I expect you and EGM and any journalist who wants to be taken seriously to say something like that. 

[vudu]

I think it's hard to get that perspective actually without getting the game for free. Had you paid for it, you could go the direction of Ian where you might force yourself to like it because you spent so much, or you could dislike it more because you felt ripped off. In an environment where you have nothing to gain or lose, you are able to give the most evenhanded evaluation.

Like I said in regards to the pricing and ramifications, that's something that's saved for the recommendation. Right now the game is $50 or $60, but what happens when it's in the bargain bin? Is the game better now that it's cheaper?

Life doesn't happen in a vacuum and neither should game reviews.

Most people not only seek high quality games but they also seek value.  They don't want to spend $50 on "the best 5 hours of their life"--they'd rather wait and spend $20 in six months.

When you review a FPS for Wii do you compare it to other FPSs on Wii?  How about on competing systems?  Whether you make a direct statement in your review or you just think about it while forming your opinion, you can't ignore everything that's going on in the outside world. 

[Dirk Temporo]

I'm...uninterested in anything...Disney related

:|

Disney has done some amazing stuff, especially recently. Did you see Wall-E?

[mac<censored>]

Kingdom Hearts can never be bad, that is the truth.

I've honestly never seen the appeal...

Isn't that the game where you can kill Mickey, again, and again, and again...?

No, it isn't.

Well that sucks then...

[GoldenPhoenix]

I'm...uninterested in anything...Disney related

:|

Disney has done some amazing stuff, especially recently. Did you see Wall-E?

Pixar did Wall-E, though they are owned by Disney. Bolt wasn't a bad movie, if I recall that was done more in house. And of course we have the new animated movie The Princess and the Frog coming out made by Disney that seems to be an attempt to go back to their classic stuff.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The Princess and the Frog & Rapunzel are in the works at Disney right now and both are traditionally animated 2D movies.