Do some sites actually get paid for the good reviews?

[evil_ash_xero]

I know that some movie reviewers get paid to go to hotels and dinners.

Everyone always claim that IGN, GameSpot, and Famitsu get paid.

What's the actual proof of this?

Not saying it's not true(it probably is), i'm just curious about the specifics.

[Skykid]

You mean do reviewers get paid off to give good reviews?

No, but there's a fair bit of encouragement. High profile releases come with expensive treats and treatment, which can include huge event days or trips abroad to celebrate an upcoming game and provide early versions to play on. If a hotel is required, it's usually the top end of the scale too.

It's an industry with more money than just about any other in the entertainment world, journo's get spoiled like crazy, and often, and I can only imagine the idea is to drum up good feeling for the upcoming game.

I've had a few niceties, but not as many as I'd like. For one totally spoiled bastard, ask Spadgy. When he flew to Thailand for the Uncharted 2 premier they put Thai hookers in his toilet to wipe his ass.

[maxlords]

I'd swear there have been scandals about this before though....

I'm sure it HAS happened in the past and will happen again, but most of em, I'd think no. I've seen it before where they right a review but have obviously not heavily played the game before though.

[Drum]

I know that some movie reviewers get paid to go to hotels and dinners.

Everyone always claim that IGN, GameSpot, and Famitsu get paid.

What's the actual proof of this?

Not saying it's not true(it probably is), i'm just curious about the specifics.

It's not as straightforward as 'getting paid for good reviews', but obviously big advertisers need to be satisfied. Mags/sites basically get paid for big previews which creates a big hype cycle which in turn can creep its way into reviews (at least in the shittier sites/mags). With the new focus publishers have on metacritic scores this has got worse.
There is a pretty damn strong correlation with metacritic scores and how much the game cost to make/market and where the money is (console games always score higher than pc games/handheld games) - I don't think you can just dismiss it as a wacky conspiracy, but you can't just hang it all on that either.

I know Famitsu at least hands their reviews back to the publishers before it gets published saying 'is this okay?' (at least for bigger games - they don't bother doing that with people who don't pay for splashy previews).

[BulletMagnet]

I'd swear there have been scandals about this before though....

I recall accusations to this end with the first Kane and Lynch, and remember some guy getting fired somewhere down the line, though I'm not sure anything definitive was ever admitted by anyone.

[Skykid]

Someone slated Assassin's Creed once and got the sack because the site was splash advertising it.

[E. Randy Dupre]

The Kane & Lynch thing was Gamespot. Ads for the game all over the site, editor gives the game a mediocre review, editor is suddenly no longer working for Gamespot.

I remember some years back one of the big UK mags - Edge, I think - stopped receiving review copies of games from a particular, big-name publisher, because they refused to either bump a review score or send the review to the game publisher for approval before the issue was released. Can't remember which publisher, mind.

It always annoys me when people claim that a mag has artificially inflated a review score or written an overly-positive review because of bribes/gratuities, simply because those people don't agree with the review. It's an accusation that displays real arrogance on the part of those making it - you don't agree with me, therefore you must be on the take. It's a similar thought process to that of the "you don't like this game that I like, therefore you're obviously not playing it properly" non-argument.

When somebody leaves a mag or site immediately after semi-slating a game from a publisher who's currently sponsoring that mag or site, however, that should rightly be considered as evidence to suggest that something whiffy is going on in the background.

[BryanM]

Yes, it definitely happens. The big sites get revenue directly from the big publishers.

PcGamer gave Hellgate a 89, when in that issue they were including a key for an in-game pet based on their (Pcgamer's) mascot. Other people gave it less than 89. What is sad, even with all that, they could not bring themselves to give it that one liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle point to get it on the shiny honor roll with the images of gold medals printed on paper.

It's really goddamn obvious with online sites however.

The little comment in the middle of this screen sums up reality.

It always annoys me when people claim that a mag has artificially inflated a review score or written an overly-positive review because of bribes/gratuities, simply because those people don't agree with the review.

The shadow of doubt is always there.

Plants are employed to some degree - as usually no one has anything to gain by slamming something. The weirdness of this really gets to come to the front with IMDB - companies will decide on a "realistic" score and hire people to nudge it toward that number.

Also worth mentioning - Look at the Starcraft 2 amazon page: nothing but 5's and 1's. It's like some youtube shit: thumbs up and thumps down.

[Drum]

This is a rumour, but I believe it: S-E has asked Gamespot and IGN to remove their reviews of FFXIV (IGN hasn't posted their score yet ... but it's not going to be good) or no more review copies.

This is a pretty standard situation when big titles get blasted, from what I've gathered.

[Jockel]

When he flew to Thailand for the Uncharted 2 premier they put Thai hookers in his toilet to wipe his ass.

And i studied this education crap... why the hell didn't i become a game journalist?

[ZOM]

When he flew to Thailand for the Uncharted 2 premier they put Thai hookers in his toilet to wipe his ass.

So you *do* get payed to nicely spice up reviews, in that case.

In all seriousness, I often heard from "friends" that their editors would ask to remove bits that could put the respective publisher into bad light, and even suggestions about changing whole paragraphs to spicen up the review in question in a positive way for some of the bigger publishers around. Now, if that has to do with the "extras" Skykid mentioned and comes from the review company's free will, or if there is some dirty work involved, I do not know... and don't care tbh, I have my own opinion about the games I like to play - in my book reviews should just be pointers to show the public if a game is a technical unplayable mess or not, the rest is just too subjective.

[Lordstar]

I can name a few people off the top of my head in the UK who run sites or write for sites who review computergames. They do very well for themselves, some do it for the love of it. They never pay for games and are shipped all over the EU to cover new game products. While others have a subscription to blockbuster and use that to get though about 6 games in a month. The system of reviewing is flawed but its not entirley rotten to the core. No matter how much money you throw at a shit game to get good reviews it is not going to make it a good game and with the second hand market being what it is. Kane and Lynch 2 being in my memory has yet to be out over two months and have dropped to half price.

[GaijinPunch]

When he flew to Thailand for the Uncharted 2 premier they put Thai hookers in his toilet to wipe his ass.

And i studied this education crap... why the hell didn't i become a game journalist?

You don't have to be a game journalist. That is a standard Thailand package. If you pay an extra $10 USD the hookers won't have dicks.

[Skykid]

You don't have to be a game journalist. That is a standard Thailand package. If you pay an extra $10 USD the hookers won't have dicks.

LOL

That thing about Spadgy was a joke btw. The guy is pure as a saint (and married).

The closest thing I've ever experienced to actual coercion was a drunk PR guy begging me not give the game less than an 8 after I was running through its faults with some of the other journos at the bar.

He was a really nice guy though, I liked him a lot and I did feel for him in a way (like it's down to him to pull in the good scores by showing people a good time.)

I gave it a 6 in the end. Gotta be true to yourself or its not worth doing of course. I don't like the idea of deluding the public either, I've been a gamer too long for that.

Despite that, I still find it hard to believe websites get actual cash payoffs to provide good reviews. I think that's stretching it. The drunk PR who's got a bar tab of £1k to pay I can swallow, but that sounds slightly too much.

[Lordstar]

Paid? maybe not. Pay off? Fuck yes that happens.
It happens all all industries all the fucking time. example would be that one of my clothing suppliers send me boxes of choclate on all holidays and whenever they send a rep in. Does it work? Yeah some times, A lot of my suppliers sell the same product or want me to push another one of there new products to my customers. If the product is good then i will do it. Or they can give me a better price than one of there competors then im all over it.

I really dont like people who review (if i may generalize) there is this whole new breed of websites coming out who dangle the carrot of the possablity of paid work and get people to review for free and such while taking profits from advertising and such. All while holding a banner pushing big freindley words like comunity and familly and nuture tallent. When really they make them sign paper work saying they can write for anoyone else (sometimes inc a personal blog) and then taking any paid work by profesional companies themselves. OK its there website and they dont have to pay there staff if they dont want to but to go as far as to block your your staff from writing for anyone else just seems greedy and vile to me.

I really do have a very stong feeling of hate for most writers. Its not a big secrect that I failed reach peticualr levels of education and I find a lot of educated people to be quite snobbish often with a huge streak of zealot running though them. But then there are people who write becuase they love it and if they get a break and make some cash then more power to them. Spadgey not included. that guy is the fucking Don!

[Skykid]

I really do have a very stong feeling of hate for most writers. Its not a big secrect that I failed reach peticualr levels of education and I find a lot of educated people to be quite snobbish often with a huge streak of zealot running though them.

Well you seemed very nice, articulate and fairly educated when I met you. One of the coolest chaps at the show I thought.
All the journo guys I ever met, Spadgy (my patron, lord and saviour) and my close friend RupertH included - were anything but snobbish zealots. Then again we all dragged our asses up from shitty jobs hoping to get the right breaks. I used to write reviews for fun since I was 14, tried a fanzine at 15, never showed a thing to anyone and it's all lost on a floppy disk somewhere.
That said though, I met some other folks too who write for various mags and they were all really cool. I don't think you can evaluate the person based on their education/job role - they're just making a living.

Anyway, games journalists may be spoiled from time to time, but well paid they certainly aren't.

[E. Randy Dupre]

I think online reviewing is a significantly different matter than published mags. In my (pathetically limited) experience, anyway.

[Skykid]

I think online reviewing is a significantly different matter than published mags. In my (pathetically limited) experience, anyway.

Probably, online reviews are nearly always embargoed until the day of release, whereas print has no restrictions. Print stuff tends to be less under the kosh, because of a more limited audience perhaps (that and that it doesn't exist forever on the net).

Just look at Edge's Final Fantasy XII review: 6 out of 10, and pretty much spot on in every criticism he had. That review gave me wood.

[E. Randy Dupre]

I think, also, there's a difference in image where the people behind the pieces are concerned. Print feels like *proper* journalism, whereas online feels like a bit of a compromise - there's a buzz about getting something printed, a real sense of achievement, but online is just... well, it's online. And an awful lot of online games journalism has that feel to it, that the writers either can't be arsed or don't have the skill with language or the ability to form valid, insightful criticism that I'd see as an expectation in print journos. Probably because the online proving ground is online.

And with that half-arsed outlook, a willingness to compromise in order to keep games publishers happy probably only comes as natural.

Also, online = no revenue from issues sold, so advertising is your main source of income. That can't ever be good for objectivity.

[maxlords]

When he flew to Thailand for the Uncharted 2 premier they put Thai hookers in his toilet to wipe his ass.

And i studied this education crap... why the hell didn't i become a game journalist?

You don't have to be a game journalist. That is a standard Thailand package. If you pay an extra $10 USD the hookers won't have dicks.

Remind me not to shell out the extra $10 then. It'll be like a jungle adventure but in a suite!

[Blade]

I honestly tend to trust Gamefaqs over most other review sources. By gamers, for gamers. Etc. etc.

[BryanM]

Also, online = no revenue from issues sold, so advertising is your main source of income. That can't ever be good for objectivity.

Advertising is the main source of income for print too.

Sheesh, remember the old days where Nintendo Power had no ads in it? Sure you could say the thing itself was an ad but uh..

[TrevHead (TVR)]

In my own mind I see magazines as been of a higher standard then online sites but one thing that ive never really liked is the fact that gaming mags / sites need the publishers both for advertising and for news from the publishers PR. I remember reading an article on icycalms insonia/ac site that made a few good points (i wont link it though incase i get accused of been any icycalm fan / spy or glove puppet lol)

[E. Randy Dupre]

Also, online = no revenue from issues sold, so advertising is your main source of income. That can't ever be good for objectivity.

Advertising is the main source of income for print too.

Yeah, but not to the same degree. And, I suppose, if you're making your audience pay for reading your content, then you've got more of a responsibility to that audience. As they're free to view, online sites have no such responsibility.

Blade> Gamefaqs reviews? Seriously? Sure, you don't have to worry about the writers being in publishers' back pockets, but hell, you're never going to read less objective (or intelligent, or intelligible) analysis of a game than you're likely to find on Gamefaqs. 99% of the user reviews there appear to have been written by people with major axes to grind. You'd be better off checking somewhere like Amazon if you want mass user reviews. Gamefaqs reviews are either dominated by blind brand loyalty or out-and-out trolling.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

I honestly tend to trust Gamefaqs over most other review sources. By gamers, for gamers. Etc. etc.

That ketsui article is the best article ive read in years lol. Even though its a joke review (i hope for humanities sake) It is a good example of everything thats wrong with online reviews. Been that any old tom dick and harry with half a brain cell can write a review with the review possibly having mis leading or outright wrong facts about the game.

Atleast with profession reviews theres a much bigger chance of imo of the basic facts about the game been correct. (facts and info / news are the biggest reason ill read a reviews and not if he likes the game or not since the review will have a differing taste in games to me)

[austere]

Do some sites actually get paid for the good reviews?

Short answer, yes!
Longer answer, all of the big ones.

I remember reading an article on icycalms insonia/ac site that made a few good points (i wont link it though incase i get accused of been any icycalm fan / spy or glove puppet lol)

Come on, it's on topic, here I'll do it for you:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_video ... ws_racket/

Not like anyone will read it though, lol.

[Lordstar]

I guess i am still educated as I educated myself on a lot of things. I guess the wording would be that im not academic.

IcyCalm would be a good point to prove that reviews in the games industry do have a habit of sitting in there ivory towers thinking they are somehow a the scribes to our gaming lives of what we should like and not like. then again people are so passionate about there games its untrue. I know people who wont even play the SFIV becuase it went to 3D. Come on we all have guilty gaming pleasures

[Drum]

I guess i am still educated as I educated myself on a lot of things. I guess the wording would be that im not academic.

IcyCalm would be a good point to prove that reviews in the games industry do have a habit of sitting in there ivory towers thinking they are somehow a the scribes to our gaming lives of what we should like and not like. then again people are so passionate about there games its untrue. I know people who wont even play the SFIV becuase it went to 3D. Come on we all have guilty gaming pleasures

I can't tell, are you giving icycalm as an example of somebody sitting in his ivory tower, or that he's critical of people who do? Because it reads right either way.

[neorichieb1971]

I think its ironic in most cases. If I were a developer and I knew my game was 10/10 quality I wouldn't advertise it over 4 pages etc. Its stupid because the score is going to sell the game.

I remember once Halo 2 was splashed all over Famitsu with a high 30+ score, I don't think it was successful because Japanese hate FPS games. But apparently the reviewers loved it

[ROBOTRON]

I have no proof, but I'd say yes, because why else would they praise "Ikaruga" so much? Till this day, sites like IGN compares just about every shooter it reviews to Ikaruga as if they still remember how many EUROs and British pound notes they were paid to push it.