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

[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