I was thinking the exact same thing about Ars. I like the way they do their reviews, and the fact that they'll tell the reader that the product isn't worth buying, their review of ODST being a great example.
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 mentioned on the N4G thread but I wanted to post it in here too, so:
It seems clear that neither Microsoft nor GGG are under contractual obligation here and as far we know Microsoft has not gone after GGG with legal charges. Since the reviewer showed that he had a legit copy and he got it from a reseller who shipped it early he's not at fault for having the game and since it wasn't a review copy he was, to my understanding, legally free to publish the review before the embargo. But a gaming publication like GGG should not have been surprised that there was an embargo and, with a little research, should have been able to figure out that breaking the embargo would have negative consequences with Microsoft.
Microsoft, in tern has every bit as much right to decide not to have a relationship with GGG in the near future.
This isn't a story about legalities, it's a story of integrity, and yes, a bit. of miscommunication and misunderstanding
I accept the point that most consumer/lifestyle media follow the same commercial path (even the national media to an extent) but that does not excuse the general theme. Even so, I think it is a tad unfair to assume games journalists are bastions of consumer rights. It patronises the consumer and overeggs the role of game hacks.
Gamers are a sophisticated demographic with their own generic preferences. As such, if I love FPS I am going to buy Halo or CoD – as are most of the population – irrespective of whether it is given a poor review by the myriad of rookie reviewers out there. Likewise if you said Barbie’s Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue was the best game money can it would still not prompt the masses to purchase it. A select few games publications have genuine credibility (people mentioned Ars and Edge seems to be fairly balanced) so, in those cases, a consumer MAY go look at reviews when wanting to buy a game of peripheral interest, like is Dark Sector worth picking up in a bargain basement? Otherwise it is generally comes across as amateurs writing about a hobby.
From reading many games publications over the last 20 years it has become apparent that most game hacks are people who game for a hobby, have a belief that they can somehow write, and that writing about games would make a great full-time job (also the case for journalists in film, music, motor, etc). There is limited credible or quality journalism within it though. I‘ve seen some magazine attempt to go more high-brow and write features on gaming issue but, rather sloppily, they tend to be poorly researched with little or no viable sources and written in the first person. Good luck to them all but don’t pretend it is some noble cause to save the pleb in the street from wasting his or her pocket money.
Remember the story about the Jeff Gerstmann firing? I no longer read Gamespot, I refuse to accept it as a source with any integrity.
Game reviews do play a valuable role for the consumer, and ensuring fair play while keeping the editorial and advertising departments separate is paramount.
Having rules to ensure the journalists compete for their content value on a level playing field is paramount to that mission. If a publisher is going to shirk the rules for a specific publication just because they are offering a positive review in return, that destroys the credibility of that publication.
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.
You sure you're talking to the right people? I don't know anyone here who plays 360.
Comments
1/10
p.s. MY CAPS LOCK IS BROKEN TOO.
It seems clear that neither Microsoft nor GGG are under contractual obligation here and as far we know Microsoft has not gone after GGG with legal charges. Since the reviewer showed that he had a legit copy and he got it from a reseller who shipped it early he's not at fault for having the game and since it wasn't a review copy he was, to my understanding, legally free to publish the review before the embargo. But a gaming publication like GGG should not have been surprised that there was an embargo and, with a little research, should have been able to figure out that breaking the embargo would have negative consequences with Microsoft.
Microsoft, in tern has every bit as much right to decide not to have a relationship with GGG in the near future.
This isn't a story about legalities, it's a story of integrity, and yes, a bit. of miscommunication and misunderstanding
I accept the point that most consumer/lifestyle media follow the same commercial path (even the national media to an extent) but that does not excuse the general theme. Even so, I think it is a tad unfair to assume games journalists are bastions of consumer rights. It patronises the consumer and overeggs the role of game hacks.
Gamers are a sophisticated demographic with their own generic preferences. As such, if I love FPS I am going to buy Halo or CoD – as are most of the population – irrespective of whether it is given a poor review by the myriad of rookie reviewers out there. Likewise if you said Barbie’s Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue was the best game money can it would still not prompt the masses to purchase it. A select few games publications have genuine credibility (people mentioned Ars and Edge seems to be fairly balanced) so, in those cases, a consumer MAY go look at reviews when wanting to buy a game of peripheral interest, like is Dark Sector worth picking up in a bargain basement? Otherwise it is generally comes across as amateurs writing about a hobby.
From reading many games publications over the last 20 years it has become apparent that most game hacks are people who game for a hobby, have a belief that they can somehow write, and that writing about games would make a great full-time job (also the case for journalists in film, music, motor, etc). There is limited credible or quality journalism within it though. I‘ve seen some magazine attempt to go more high-brow and write features on gaming issue but, rather sloppily, they tend to be poorly researched with little or no viable sources and written in the first person. Good luck to them all but don’t pretend it is some noble cause to save the pleb in the street from wasting his or her pocket money.
Bitches don't know 'bout my Barbie's Horse Adventures. Shit is super fly.
Remember the story about the Jeff Gerstmann firing? I no longer read Gamespot, I refuse to accept it as a source with any integrity.
Game reviews do play a valuable role for the consumer, and ensuring fair play while keeping the editorial and advertising departments separate is paramount.
Having rules to ensure the journalists compete for their content value on a level playing field is paramount to that mission. If a publisher is going to shirk the rules for a specific publication just because they are offering a positive review in return, that destroys the credibility of that publication.
...
Just wait until you get to the 3rd game in the series. The sing along parts are the greatest achievement in video game history.