LOL look at all these 360 fanboys on here, "OH YES I CONGRATULATE TO MY VERY BESTED FRIEND MICROSOFT FOR GIVING CONSEQUENCES (An Unfair one) TO PEOPLE WHO HAD A LEGIT COPY OF ODST AND WHO REVIEWED IT (who reviewed it quite fairly). You 3fixme fanboys are idiots. This aint a black and white situation going on here, OPEN YOUR EYES, READ AGAIN AND UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION.
I can understand if GGG did have problems taking the review down once Microsoft contacted them, but they can hardly pretend to be innocent on the issue of the embargo date. If you want to be a news source, you should perhaps do a little research so you're correctly delivering the news when it's supposed to go out. If GGG really couldn't get to his site to take the information down I can see why he's frustrated, but you can't blame Microsoft for being suspicious.
If the recent CNBC/CNN/Obama/Kanye fuckup proves anything, it's that "I didn't know" is not a valid excuse. You wouldn't accept that from a child, much less a website which should be acting with integrity.
Well, it really says something about the integrity and gets back down to the question of "anybody with some webspace can be a journalist" nowadays.
The sad part is that it makes ALL of us look bad. We have a hard enough time being taken seriously as professionals, and pundits point to situations exactly like this as evidence that integrity means nothing online.
Yeah...the VG world has it tough. Always getting blamed for death and sex.
I think Microsoft went too easy on these guys. Three warnings? Hell two was enough. No one's stupid and this was a HUGE launch. From now on it should be guilty until proven innocent, immediate blacklistings without warning.
I'm just glad most people see where the big corporation is right in this case.
Well, if he is even slightly interested in gaming and got it as a reviewer, he should probably have realised that there were no other reviews yet, and it wouldn't take much to put two and two together! Else if he got it legally through a shop, still being interested in gaming, should have known that he was not meant to have it.
It all comes down to responsibility. If you start typing on the Internet and announcing yourself as a Journalist, you have to act like one and take the consequences. There are consequences for everything you say and publish. Although the same can be said for the 4 year olds who have attempted to turn this into a fanboy argument. The consequence is you are destroying a good debate, and making yourself sound like a 4 year old of debatable IQ!
I think the "Journalist" deserves the response he received from Microsoft, and should potentially spend a bit more time researching before hitting the "send" button. If you break a law, willingly or ignorantly, you are still breaking the law.
I used to like my Xbox and then I got a gaming PC and now the 360 amounts to a very expensive and very large paper weight.
I played consoles hours and hours a day when I was younger... Right up until 2000.
I built my first computer that year. I've not touched a console newer than the NES for any significant amount of time since then. I just can't get into them... The feel so one-dimensional compared to the PC.
Interesting debate. Breaking an embargo is not breaking the law though, all it means is some corporation’s finely-tuned publicity campaign begins a bit earlier. The best indication is what was the reaction for breaking an embargo? The journalists don’t get to go a games expo, which is just a big advertising-fest anyway.
I think “the integrity of game journalism†is not in question as it is apparent that the journalists themselves – acting in conjunction was an embargo – become nothing more than a qausi-viral marketing campaign . Microsoft wants optimum publicity, hence the specific embargo, and the reviewer duely oblige. A game review is hardly a scoop or even an insightful consumer rights piece.
Game journalism struggles to be taken seriously because so much of it is merely an advertising conduit for commercial ventures. After all, if the biggest issue in the sector is publishing an embargoed review 12 hours early for a game that is rated 9 out I0 then it must be fairly trivial. How many big games releases get totally panned by critics anyway? None. Even the most God-awful games are awarded usually 3 or 4 stars. Whis is that? Is that because Halo 3: ODST is a pinnacle of modern gaming (I got a legit copy of Halo 3: ODST shipped to me early and it is definitely 6 out of 10 at most) or because journalists know that a bad review means not invite to X ’09?
I think that if GGG got the game legitamately from a store, then they have a right to review and post it, and the store should be at fault for shipping before release, but that does not give them an excuse to half-ass a review to get it out before release (I haven't read the article, its blocked by my school, but if it's 9 out of 10, the review MUST be flawed).
I think Microsoft did what was necessary to preserve a level playing field for journalists. Is it harsh, yes, but ultimately being welcomed to Microsoft press events, and receiving advance review samples is a privilege, not a right.
I was under the assumption that GGG got the game legitamately though Newegg, it just shipped early and they got it before release. Am I wrong?
If that's the case, they got a retail copy from a retailer, which I think gives them the right to publish a review for the game. If otherwise, then yes, the punishment is just.
I think a lot of people here fail to realize that this is a newer site run mostly by people who are either in high school or just entering college. This isn't some large publication that's been doing this for a long time; they're still trying to learn the ropes here, and this must be taken as a learning experience. For what it's worth, Newegg did ship out copies of ODST early, so there's nothing farfetched about this. And if you never agree to an embargo in the first place, you can't exactly break it. Even if you did, there's no law against it. Microsoft's just mad because someone found a loophope. Also, for what it's worth, Giant wasn't even the first to get a review of the game up.
Giant may be new to the game and ultimately if they want to exploit a loophole to get a review up early to drive some additional traffic to their site, nobody can stop them. At the same time, they have to respect that Bungie and Microsoft have an interest in preserving an even playing field for review outlets, that's why the embargo exists. Perhaps Giant did not know or understand the policy, but ignorance is never an excuse. Once again, invitations to press events and advance review samples are a privilege for publications like ours, they are not a given right and its fair that Giant looses some of that with Bungie and Microsoft, at least for the next review cycle to get their point across. If they truly did not know how the game was supposed to be played, now they do.
Giving a game a particular score, or number of stars, in a review is silly anyhow. The point of a review is to help the consumer decide if they should spend their money on the product. Knowing how much the reviewer liked the game personally isn't actually very helpful, since that doesn't necessarily convert into levels of enjoyment for his/her entire audience.
Game journalism struggles to be taken seriously because so much of it is merely an advertising conduit for commercial ventures.
The same can be said of most non-national news venues (and from a man who works in that industry, even that facet isn't free from the we're selling you a product' department). Film industry journalists review films, thus selling the movie to viewers. A journalist writing for an automobile magazine is doing the same thing, commercializing a product.
We work in an industry that is almost purely commercial. It's the nature of the business. But rather than our writings serving as a marketing wanking piece to support the big corporations, our writing serves as a method of informing the reader - the consumer - and ultimately helping them make the best of their hard earned money.
Readers come to game journalists not to learn how they can support a corporation. They want to buy games and equipment and not waste their money. They do this because they are passionate about gaming, it is their hobby.
That's what game journalists do. We are a helpful catalyst for the informed gaming consumer.
chrisWhite
Littleton, CO
Comments
<a href=http://icrontic.com/articles/embargoes-are-dead-long-live-embargoes target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Embargoes are dead, long live embargoes!</a>
I applaud Microsoft in doing this. Finally, SOMEONE took action. Now if they could keep things fair with the big name sites, I'd be a happy man.
Very interesting read.
Collectively the people you're referring to have over 25,000 posts on Icrontic. I'll wait while you find 1 post where any of them fawn over the 360.
/me grabs some popcorn and waits
...wait, I don't have an Xbox 360.
The sad part is that it makes ALL of us look bad. We have a hard enough time being taken seriously as professionals, and pundits point to situations exactly like this as evidence that integrity means nothing online.
I think Microsoft went too easy on these guys. Three warnings? Hell two was enough. No one's stupid and this was a HUGE launch. From now on it should be guilty until proven innocent, immediate blacklistings without warning.
I'm just glad most people see where the big corporation is right in this case.
It all comes down to responsibility. If you start typing on the Internet and announcing yourself as a Journalist, you have to act like one and take the consequences. There are consequences for everything you say and publish. Although the same can be said for the 4 year olds who have attempted to turn this into a fanboy argument. The consequence is you are destroying a good debate, and making yourself sound like a 4 year old of debatable IQ!
I think the "Journalist" deserves the response he received from Microsoft, and should potentially spend a bit more time researching before hitting the "send" button. If you break a law, willingly or ignorantly, you are still breaking the law.
Also, this:
I played consoles hours and hours a day when I was younger... Right up until 2000.
I built my first computer that year. I've not touched a console newer than the NES for any significant amount of time since then. I just can't get into them... The feel so one-dimensional compared to the PC.
I think “the integrity of game journalism†is not in question as it is apparent that the journalists themselves – acting in conjunction was an embargo – become nothing more than a qausi-viral marketing campaign . Microsoft wants optimum publicity, hence the specific embargo, and the reviewer duely oblige. A game review is hardly a scoop or even an insightful consumer rights piece.
Game journalism struggles to be taken seriously because so much of it is merely an advertising conduit for commercial ventures. After all, if the biggest issue in the sector is publishing an embargoed review 12 hours early for a game that is rated 9 out I0 then it must be fairly trivial. How many big games releases get totally panned by critics anyway? None. Even the most God-awful games are awarded usually 3 or 4 stars. Whis is that? Is that because Halo 3: ODST is a pinnacle of modern gaming (I got a legit copy of Halo 3: ODST shipped to me early and it is definitely 6 out of 10 at most) or because journalists know that a bad review means not invite to X ’09?
Either way, Microsoft wins.
If that's the case, they got a retail copy from a retailer, which I think gives them the right to publish a review for the game. If otherwise, then yes, the punishment is just.
Giant may be new to the game and ultimately if they want to exploit a loophole to get a review up early to drive some additional traffic to their site, nobody can stop them. At the same time, they have to respect that Bungie and Microsoft have an interest in preserving an even playing field for review outlets, that's why the embargo exists. Perhaps Giant did not know or understand the policy, but ignorance is never an excuse. Once again, invitations to press events and advance review samples are a privilege for publications like ours, they are not a given right and its fair that Giant looses some of that with Bungie and Microsoft, at least for the next review cycle to get their point across. If they truly did not know how the game was supposed to be played, now they do.
Ignorance is not bliss in this case.
Why? Because those journalists don't have any integrity.
A real journalist is accountable to his or her readers. He/she is a consumer advocate, a bullshit filter, a fact-checker, and a harsh critic.
Anything else is dereliction of duty at best, or negligently sycophantic at worst.
No points for giving companies a PR jerkfest. If the product isn't good, it isn't good, and the world needs to know.
ah, how little you know me. Depart from me, ye who works foolishness.
*eats some of Lincoln's popcorn*
The same can be said of most non-national news venues (and from a man who works in that industry, even that facet isn't free from the we're selling you a product' department). Film industry journalists review films, thus selling the movie to viewers. A journalist writing for an automobile magazine is doing the same thing, commercializing a product.
We work in an industry that is almost purely commercial. It's the nature of the business. But rather than our writings serving as a marketing wanking piece to support the big corporations, our writing serves as a method of informing the reader - the consumer - and ultimately helping them make the best of their hard earned money.
Readers come to game journalists not to learn how they can support a corporation. They want to buy games and equipment and not waste their money. They do this because they are passionate about gaming, it is their hobby.
That's what game journalists do. We are a helpful catalyst for the informed gaming consumer.
Ars Technica's review wasn't kind to ODST. It's no coincidence that I consider Ars to possess a high degree of integrity, either.