Adverjournalism - The Role of Ad Dollars in Media 91
Gamer 2.0 writes "The Gamer 2.0 site has a look into the role of advertising in gaming journalism, with a few reflections especially topical given the Jeff Gerstmann controversy. From the article: 'It should come as no surprise that just about every gaming forum on the internet is ablaze right now following the news of GameSpot's termination of long-time editor, Jeff Gerstmann. This article, however, is not an exposé or look into what really happened at GameSpot this week. Rather, consider this a look at the direction of gaming journalism, advertising, and how this all plays a role in the content you read.'" There have been a few more developments in the situation since Thursday night, with rumours, scuttlebutt, analysis, and cynicism reigning on every message board from here to C|Net. There has even been a spontaneous act of solidarity from elsewhere in the games journalism field.
Mandatory PA link... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Mandatory PA link... (Score:5, Interesting)
He was not the first (and I certainly wasn't either) nor will he be the last. The entire reviewing industry is corrupt. Anyone paying attention knows this. Some groups are more corrupt than others, certainly, but this is not news. Certainly no more so than "the sun rose in the east today".
Re: (Score:2)
This is an industry where layoffs are very common, so firing people can usually be blamed on something other
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't say the entire reviewing industry is corrupt.
I've reviewed a few games on my blog, http://stroppsworld.com/ [stroppsworld.com], and would like to think I've given a reasonably fair assessment of the games I've reviewed. For instance, I marked Hellgate: London down strongly for the bugs and crashes in the multiplayer game, while giving the much less problematic single player game a higher score.
There are plenty of smaller players like myself out there, who honestly put down their impressions. Would we take graft f
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've long known that all the top 'review' sites are just paid shills. Every single game is rated 'game of the year' even when its a total piece of crap that barely runs.
You can't trust any reviews other than SOME user reviews since many of those are astroturfed as well..
The same is true for any sort of review. hardware, software, games, cars, books, movies, music...
Nobody should be suprised that its the product companys who have the real power in the review process.
cap:filthier
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Care to mention some examples? Because despite this "common wisdom" being repeated so often I haven't seen that happen. The only way you could even think that's happening is if you think "gaming has been downhill ever since 3d was invented" and think all modern games are just bad games with pretty graphics that don't stack up to Pong. That's a delusion, modern games are not worse than old ones and in many case
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we'd all be better off if more sites only advertised products they genuinely liked. A site may get fewer adverts but those it did get would be far more valuable to the advertiser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If every once in a while they decide they were wrong and start criticizing the product _while the add is running next the criticism_, you have a pretty good clue. If you actually read the post that was linked, you'll see that's what happened with penny arcade and PoP2.
Let's stretch that a bit, damnit... (Score:5, Interesting)
While we're at it, how about a solution to the other two big problems on tech and game journalism's part? Even The Register [theregister.co.uk] is starting to show cracks of laziness (and occasionally outright fanboyism) in their articles nowadays.
The dead tree media may not be perfect, but at least they do have one thing they can rightly claim over most tech and gaming journals online: they have and at least halfway adhere to a code of ethics and diligence.
There's a couple places online which still do at least some due diligence and hold onto their ethics (hexus.net comes to mind), but they're getting rare. Question is, how do you fix it (short of hunting down the paid-for/fanboy shitheads like, oh, Rob Enderle, and subjecting them to a public stoning)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's stretch that a bit, damnit... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I might have found a partial solution to it, though it wouldn't work for everyone: If you run a games review site, only accept advertising from hardware vendors and the like, but none from games publishers, or businesses which sell games (this means, for instance, no MSFT money, since they sell xboxes and games for it). Hardware review sites could happily take ad money from app and games publishers, but none from Intel, AMD, etc etc. At least this way you can get some related ads still put up and money coming in, but at the same time you don't end up with the dilemma.
Re: (Score:2)
How soon before they have to start questioning posts and moderation on tech sites like Slashdot?
Can somebody with Microsoft HR confirm or deny that they have position descriptions for "Blog Reader" and "Commenter"?
Re:Let's stretch that a bit, damnit... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Commenter"? Honestly, MSFT employees would be lost in the noise. Teams at Microsoft tend to be incredibly small compared to the number of people using the product or its competitors. Take Windows, for example. The number of people that are fans of Windows (yes, they exist!) and the number of people that hate Windows both far out number the number of people that actually work on Windows at MSFT. So if you're suspecting astroturfing, chances are you're just seeing a legitimate fan/supporter of the product. That said, many of us consider it part of our jobs to post online where appropriate. If I see somebody with a question on a product I work on or am familiar with, I'll answer it or point them toward somebody who can.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the Acer Ferrari laptop debacle was proof enough that there's more than just a little purchasing on the sly... which is why I mentioned Microsoft specifically.
It's not like it's unexpected or anything... or even a new or Internet-only phenomenon. I guess it points to a larger, lazier picture in journalism these days.
On that note, I'd much more easily trust the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Let's stretch that a bit, damnit...Goatse.cx. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not "anything" positive, just a nice, healthy chunk of it. Take the recent Zune story [yahoo.com] we played with on /. this morning for instance... it was quickly disassembled and found to be pure marketing bullshit - with not even five minutes' checking. Any decent reporter could've done the same thing, and should have.
A real tech reporter would've done this checking and would have tempered the story with at least those caveats (that is, no, the Zune isn't the hottest selling portable music player overall, just the hottest selling 'year-old-model-in-this-narrow-category' item). Yet our intrepid "Tech Diva" was too enraptured by the Zune to do even the most cursory checks.
But MSFT aside, my big complaint is that basic cynicism in tech journalism ("rule #1 - if a vendor posts a press release, it's liable to be bullshit") is about as rare as virginity in a porn flick these days.
It's all about traffic (Score:2)
An obviously inaccurate story can even be a good way to generate hits and ad revenue, because lots of well-meaning bloggers will link to it in order to debunk it. The point is to stir up controversy, not to get the facts right.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The only bigger scum than you is someone who tries that excuse. Don't blame me for my actions, I'm only following orders!
Well how about getting a job you're not incompetent at?! Ever think of that? One where you can meet the requirements and not lie to do so? It might mean you have to pass up jobs from bosses who lie.
I imagine GameSpot is hiring though and you'd fit right in. A corporate culture of dishonesty
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
This is patently false. These th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, note that there are still good sources of tech journalism out
Re: (Score:2)
It looks as though you've already made up your mind, which is unfortunate, because you have no idea what you're talking about. But I realize it's easier to jump to conclusions than think about it critically.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've provided a very simple means to check against this (and actively encourage anyone in the IT or games biz --respectively-- to use it). You've provided little more than "tin foil hat" and "you have no idea what you're
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dailytech.com/pay+to+play+uncovering+online+payola/article7510.htm [dailytech.com]
How much you wanna bet a similar investigation would show the game review industry is similar?
Re: (Score:1)
We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are...kinds of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not new. The Register's claims of independence have always been just that -- claims. They have exhibited bias on numerous occasions. There's no evidence to back up their claims of independence.
Plus, how can you trust the opinion of "journalists" who put an "!" at the end of every word in every Yahoo related headline, that regularly trawl eBay for pictures
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's stretch that a bit, damnit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, why are people acting like the gaming press is any different from the "real" press? From the New York Times [nypress.com] to my local "free" weekly, this kind of stuff happens all the time. Gaming journalism is no different than regular journalism. It's just that it's more blatant in gaming media because their stock in trade is reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this isn't the case. Their stock in trade is game advertisement space. Reviews are what bring in the eyeballs that allow them to justify the going rate for said space. That's the problem that has existed all along, but people are just starting to notice. The organizations serve the gaming industry, not the gamers themselves. The two are very different bodies. And one has very deep pockets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see your point, but by the same reasoning we can say that the traditional press traffics in advertisement space (not necessarily for games) and that such outlets serve the advertisers and not the news-consuming demographic.
I know this criticism has been leveled against the MSM for a long time, and perhaps it gets at the truth. But the crucial point, hinted at by both the fine article and my reply, is that there is a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel that way about all advertising supported media. But gaming magazines and online media are so bad that I wouldn't even think of going to them for an honest review. I go to them to find user posted information about a game, like a walkthrough for some particularly difficult area or something along those lines.
Computer gaming related media is, IMHO, a laughingstock. I don't know why they even bother to have reviews. About the only site I might trust is Penny Arcade.
I've stopped watching TV and rar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an example of a story that was pretty important, but reported on precisely 2 sites, and not accurately at either. IGN's direct2drive offered and advertised pre-orders for the game BioShock,
That's the real issue (Score:2)
I am disgusted (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if all these sites are bringing this issue to light to rake in more revenue through advertising a "hot topic"(TM). But let's game something straight:
Corruption in game journalism (if you can even call it that) is nothing new. I am disgusted because I cannot believe it's being brought up now, at this very moment, AFTER someone has been fired. That is to say, after something has happened which, *gasp*, shatters a gamers wild imagination that in a world controlled by money, game reviews are as well.
I've had a run-in with GameSpot a few years ago as well. I should have posted as AC but fuck it; bottom line is: GameSpot threatened to lower reviews because of an incident regarding a game who's demo was launched before their official premier. Yeah, it's a rather sad state of affairs. I've hated GameSpot ever since, but it seems like people were locked in to GS because it seemed like the only good place to get reviews -- that is to say, they didn't give a shit about my little story.
Well, I hope they realize it now, because it seems - a lot - of people dislike companies doing what companies do: try to stay alive.
It's rather obvious, but I do find it laughable. Honestly, GameSpot's website was covered in ads for a few years now -- and you are only bringing it's "corruption" to light NOW? What kind of a sick joke is this? Of course they are going to be paid off by game companies, they have ads all over their websites for christs sake. It's their source of income and they will do anything to defend it.
Including firing an employee, which I'm sure you're all familiar to companies doing, all the time. I wonder why this is any different.
Anyway, I didn't even bother reading the article (who would?) because it's clear it doesn't tell us anything new. It's the same old mindless rambling meant to rake in the dollars.
Speaking of which, today IGN posted their 100 Top Games List (or so I am led to believe it was today). I love their strategy: 1 game per page, 100 pages, and each one is full of ads. Have fun clicking the "next page" link guys!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, Adblock [mozilla.org]....
Carry on....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm a bit tired so pardon my rambling. I tried to make this post as coherent as possible.
It's a shame I'm wasting time to blow logic holes in your tired/drunk opinions, but cockups like you being modded insightful gets tedious. Especially when this is your first post ever to /. with this username. Might as well have stayed AC, with zero cred like that. At least then you actually have to MAKE a point to get noticed.
I wonder if all these sites are bringing this issue to light to rake in more revenue through advertising a "hot topic"(TM).
Rather like mainstream media reporting on plagiarism? Do you have any idea how difficult and damaging it is to discuss flawed ethics to your audience? Thanks to page impression
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch the movie review guys anymore (haven't for 20 years), but Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertising nor does it accept donations except from individuals. As a subscriber, I get to vote for who is on the board of directors.
That's a unique situation to be sure.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Oh yes, they might drop a review score because of some procedural crap, but that's okay because they have a contract which says they'll lie in those conditions
Water is wet and so on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another problem with being a game reviewer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
G4 says, "Where else can you find a game offering the songs Barracuda and Paint it Black"?
Easy. GHII had Crazy on You and Can't you Hear Me Knocking.
Woo Hoo! Big change there!
It didn't surprise me in the least to see a 15 second GH3 commercial a few minutes later.
Re: (Score:1)
Article is lame apologism. (Score:5, Interesting)
"And let me be the first to come out and say that what happened to Jeff Gerstmann happens all the time." (Hmm, let's see. You're not "the first" by a long shot; Penny Arcade said the same thing days ago, and even then it was just reiterating a point they'd been making for YEARS, which was in fact so self-evident that ANYBODY paying attention to the industry was aware of it.)
"And if you look outside of the world of gaming, you will see this is not an isolated event; it happens in more mainstream forms of journalism, and I might add that this could be even seen as a sign of growth for our industry."
"As the industry grows, more money is circulated, and money begets corruption. It's a fact of life and it's a fact of capitalism; this is America after all."
Such ridiculous BS. Your "industry" is "burgeoning" at the exact time when it's becoming redundant and useless. If I want fluff-laden previews, game trailers, interviews with developers, and press releases, I have the friggin' Internet at my fingertips here; I don't need Gamespot to aggregate that stuff for me. In fact, the ONLY thing sites like Gamespot have to offer that I can't get somewhere else with far fewer annoying ads (and at least one less layer of crappy-journalistic obfuscation) is their professional reviews. That's the ONLY content worth having, and Gamespot just screwed it up.
I like the complaints about how things getting "big business" is inevitable. Why? A review is a few pages of plain text with a couple JPEG screenshots; hardly a bandwidth hog. To create that review, you need ONE guy who can string together legible prose and is willing to play a wide range of video games for hours on end. Is that really a hard niche to fill on the goddamned INTERNET? All this could easily be paid for with AdSense ads, which (by their very randomness) would pretty much prevent any kind of coercion, unless Google started making games.
I'm just waiting for the Penny Arcade guys or someone else with enough "e-credibility" among gamers to start pimping a site like that. A huge influx of gamers would at least check it out, along with plenty of linking from reputable sites, which would lead to a high Google rating, and before you know it, LegitGameReviews.com is the top hit every time you type "$gamename review" into Google. Hell, there are probably a dozen sites like that around already that I just don't know about - anyone wanna help me out here?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I recommend Quarter To Three, and I would recommend Old Man Murray and fatbabies.com but those two no longer post new material. It's worth reading Old Man Murray anyway, especially their interview with Croteam [oldmanmurray.com], developers of Serious Sam.
These days I tend to pirate everything to decide who deserves my money. Then I try and skip as many layers of retailing as I can to buy it. Somehow I think the developers get a bigger cut that way. I'm probably wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
While he only really reviews one game a week, he is quite mean to most of the games and hillitary ensures.
Is this good for the Company? (Score:1)
Since most of the other comments appear to be complaints about the overall state of journalism, I thought I would pause to point out that one of the Ziff Davis folks in the picture that Kotaku has is holding a sign that reads:
"Is This Good for the COMPANY?"
Just in case anyone missed the rather good Office Space reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Editorial Independence vs Happy Advertisers (Score:1)
I have seen this happen many times. Sometimes it is the editor that is let go.. and sometimes it is the advertiser that pulls all their accounts. LA Times, Time magazine... and many other of the larger news media have dealt with this.
wtf (Score:1)
Infotainverts (Score:2)
I knew the jig was up (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess what! When I went into the store looking for the game, I learned it wasn't due out yet for another couple of days! With a slow sinking feeling I realized that there was no way a magazine that is planned months in advance would be able to review a retail copy of a game when the game's ship date is later than the magazine's. Had I known the ship date I probably would have spotted the disparity right away, but alas-- I knew it was some time in October and that was all. Hmmph. Anyway, in my mind, review = available for purchase while preview = early build not available to public. Since the game shipped on the 10th of October and I got my magazine on the 6th, the mag was probably finalized at least ten days earlier, say September 26. That "review" was written at least two whole weeks before the game was available for purchase, and I'm a damned sight sure that Best Buy hadn't been sitting on it since the end of September.
Sure, maybe PCG did get a pre-shipped retail copy reserved exclusively for the print media, and maybe it was all above-board in that respect, and thirdly yes I understand that "the big scoop" is what makes or breaks any periodical, especially those trying stupidly enough to compete with electronic media. But. This was just blatant, and I'm sure it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time something like this goes down...
Luckily for everyone involved, the game (or games I guess) turned out to be a smash success (and I have really grown attached to my weighted companion cube), otherwise we probably would have heard some negative press about this a while ago. Valve was lucky in that they knew that they were sitting on solid gold, and PC Gamer was lucky that they also knew this when they accepted Valve's big pile of cash for the review and magazine cover. This may all be obvious in retrospect, but I guess my cynicism towards "the man" is still in the growing stages (dangit. I've cultivated it for a number of years now, how didn't I spot this?) I'm walking away from this whole experience feeling kind of duped and disheartened and I don't think I'll be renewing my PC Gamer subscription again. Or GFW. Or MaxPC. Or, now, buying anything produced by Ziff Davis.
Growing up sucks. Disillusionment sucks. Rampant and obvious greed sucks. I guess I'm starting to fall in the demographic that has learned that all advertizing is crap so maybe, hopefully I'll be able to spot it more easily in the future when it masquerades as legitimate journalism. Time to tune my filters I guess; all the while it will be interesting to watch how this unfolds--I'm just sad to finally realize that I've been not only blind to it but also a part of it for so long.
Cheers~
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In an unlikely turn of events PCG gave HG:L the highest score of all major review sites, 20% higher than the average and fully 35% higher than it deserved on release day.
Odd how that kinda shit happens huh?
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/927136.asp [gamerankings.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A whopping two whole weeks? I hate to burst your bubble son, but there is something called "logistics" [wikipedia.org] that takes a just a tad longer than a few days, Santa doesn't deliver this stuff on his magical sleigh. As surprising and unbelievable as it may sound, BestBuy/Walmart/CirtcuitCity/etc.. don't download and burn all t
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers~
Re: (Score:2)
That "review" was written at least two whole weeks before the game was available for purchase
That's not that outrageous by itself, as games generally "go gold" - release version gets sent to production to be turned into the nifty boxes you buy on shelves - about two to four weeks prior to the day they start getting sold. So, it's entirely possible to send out the final version two weeks in advance of when everyone else gets it.
That said, I doubt the gaming mags write their reviews only two weeks in advance of the day they show up on the magazine racks.
Re: (Score:2)
The media gets promo copies of games long before retail. With about six weeks of editorial planning, that's plenty of time to get a game, play it, review it and print the review b
Streisand effect? (Score:1)
We need a few more review sites like Zero Punctuation - no game ad revenue means no pressure from advertisers and the freedom to be honest. Metacritic is pretty good for spotting the paid shills too - if most reviews are around 7 but th
Just a common symptom of the end of the West (Score:2, Insightful)
It's that simple, and it's exactly what is going on right now; every world event, large and small points to it. Most of us will get to see the whole system fall big-time in this life. Cool, huh?
The Romans had to wait around for a thousand years before their greed-rotted system fell apart. I guess it was that their empire just ran slower. Goods and information moved at the speed of boots and horses instead of cars and trucks. The speed
Re: (Score:2)
The game industry needs to clean house (Score:1)
More info on the firing of Jeff (Score:2)
It certainly is an interesting read:
For all those calling us naysayers idiots, check this out. can't say where it's from other than "a trusted source." You decide if it's legit.
this is the latest info depicting the bigger picture around this incident:
The main problem here is that no one in the entire editorial team was aware that this was about to occur, least of all Gerstmann. We're ve