Comment C'mon (Score 1) 247
This is pretty goofy on any number of levels. First you have a Gamecube website bashing a competitor. The site says, "In case it's not perfectly clear, these magazines did not actually review these games. The reviews are based entirely on old information and possibly the demo versions of the game that were available at Cube Clubs. Nintendo will not release reviewable copies of the game (or any game) until it is completed."
No, in fact it's not perfectly clear. This particular story is as questionable as the reviews. They have not presented any actual evidence that the publications didn't have review code from Nintendo or the developer. (The "Nintendo doesn't send out incomplete code" comment could be evidence, as I'm not sure of its policy, but perhaps Nintendo doesn't send incomplete code to Planet GameCube and does to the EGMs and GamePros of the world).
The question I have is whether they contacted Nintendo, the magazines, or the writers and actually asked them any of these questions. If they did, they failed to present that information to readers. As it reads, it's just a guess, complete speculation, and doesn't warrant the attention. Guess it was more important to put it up quickly as opposed to letting someone comment...
But it does raise a bigger topic that comes up every so often about ethics. It's very simple: any publication that compromises its ethics to better compete gets what it deserves. If these magazines ran reviews of incomplete games, or based them on demos, they wouldn't be the first and wouldn't be the last, and lord knows I wish more people would care enough to point this stuff out. And they'll get what they deserve in the end.
As for people pointing out how computer print magazines work, honestly folks, it's 100% different. At the publication I work for (Computer Games Magazine), we do not, and cannot, review "beta" code because of problems with bugs. (Console games typically don't have as many problems in their final code.) I don't care how many promises they make, but publishers have proven over and over again they can't be trusted to fix their PC game products before they shove them out the door. (The console world is much more stringent, with the console makers handling some of the QA.)
I note some of the people mentioning press in the rest of the world, and my own experience with the UK press shows a competely different approach. Their reliance on newsstand sales (nearly 100%, very few subscriptions) makes the competition brutal. This often results in reviewing betas in attempts to out "exclusive" each other. They also have shorter lead times, which makes review covers a much greater possibility.
The US market is completely different, with more subscribers than newsstand sales making that level of competition somewhat less relevant (most magazines feature "previews" of upcoming games as their main sales tool, as opposed to reviews of existing ones).
I'm not sure if enough people realize that magazines don't have to compete one-to-one with websites. If you can't compete on timeliness, which a print magazine generally cannot do, go for depth and accuracy, two things often thrown by the side when pursuing the almighty scoop (this particular story may be evidence). What's of more value to you, as a reader, the review posted a day after a game's release, which is based on a few hours of play, or the one that includes a few weeks of actually playing the game to completion? Do you want first impressions or a true review of the entire game? Both serve a purpose, both have some value, but if you can't do one, go for the other. (Or in this example, doesn't someone want to know what Nintendo, the developer, or the publications think of this particular issue?)
As for publications toning down reviews to get previews, as some toss around in threads like this as if it's a known fact, I've not seen such a thing, though my perspective is limited to my own publication (unlike apparently everyone here, who either has first-hand knowledge of this or has "a friend" who does). But if you think about it, it's goofy. If readers caught wind of this, do you think they'd continue reading? No readers=no publication.
More importantly, reviews are the most mportant part of a game magazine; previews are candy. Reviews make, and break, your reputation. It's incredibly difficult to build a reputation, and incredibly easy to lose it. Risking that reputation so you can secure the one-month exclusive on "Tony Hawk 4" makes no long-term sense.
Also, if a company doesn't want to give out preview information because of a negative review (something no one does, and I've been writing about videogames for over 10 years now), why would we care? Fuck 'em. There are plenty of games to cover, and if they want to lose out on reaching our readers, that's their call (and one they don't make because they're not that stupid and/or petty).
Steve Bauman
Editor in Chief, Computer Games Magazine
No, in fact it's not perfectly clear. This particular story is as questionable as the reviews. They have not presented any actual evidence that the publications didn't have review code from Nintendo or the developer. (The "Nintendo doesn't send out incomplete code" comment could be evidence, as I'm not sure of its policy, but perhaps Nintendo doesn't send incomplete code to Planet GameCube and does to the EGMs and GamePros of the world).
The question I have is whether they contacted Nintendo, the magazines, or the writers and actually asked them any of these questions. If they did, they failed to present that information to readers. As it reads, it's just a guess, complete speculation, and doesn't warrant the attention. Guess it was more important to put it up quickly as opposed to letting someone comment...
But it does raise a bigger topic that comes up every so often about ethics. It's very simple: any publication that compromises its ethics to better compete gets what it deserves. If these magazines ran reviews of incomplete games, or based them on demos, they wouldn't be the first and wouldn't be the last, and lord knows I wish more people would care enough to point this stuff out. And they'll get what they deserve in the end.
As for people pointing out how computer print magazines work, honestly folks, it's 100% different. At the publication I work for (Computer Games Magazine), we do not, and cannot, review "beta" code because of problems with bugs. (Console games typically don't have as many problems in their final code.) I don't care how many promises they make, but publishers have proven over and over again they can't be trusted to fix their PC game products before they shove them out the door. (The console world is much more stringent, with the console makers handling some of the QA.)
I note some of the people mentioning press in the rest of the world, and my own experience with the UK press shows a competely different approach. Their reliance on newsstand sales (nearly 100%, very few subscriptions) makes the competition brutal. This often results in reviewing betas in attempts to out "exclusive" each other. They also have shorter lead times, which makes review covers a much greater possibility.
The US market is completely different, with more subscribers than newsstand sales making that level of competition somewhat less relevant (most magazines feature "previews" of upcoming games as their main sales tool, as opposed to reviews of existing ones).
I'm not sure if enough people realize that magazines don't have to compete one-to-one with websites. If you can't compete on timeliness, which a print magazine generally cannot do, go for depth and accuracy, two things often thrown by the side when pursuing the almighty scoop (this particular story may be evidence). What's of more value to you, as a reader, the review posted a day after a game's release, which is based on a few hours of play, or the one that includes a few weeks of actually playing the game to completion? Do you want first impressions or a true review of the entire game? Both serve a purpose, both have some value, but if you can't do one, go for the other. (Or in this example, doesn't someone want to know what Nintendo, the developer, or the publications think of this particular issue?)
As for publications toning down reviews to get previews, as some toss around in threads like this as if it's a known fact, I've not seen such a thing, though my perspective is limited to my own publication (unlike apparently everyone here, who either has first-hand knowledge of this or has "a friend" who does). But if you think about it, it's goofy. If readers caught wind of this, do you think they'd continue reading? No readers=no publication.
More importantly, reviews are the most mportant part of a game magazine; previews are candy. Reviews make, and break, your reputation. It's incredibly difficult to build a reputation, and incredibly easy to lose it. Risking that reputation so you can secure the one-month exclusive on "Tony Hawk 4" makes no long-term sense.
Also, if a company doesn't want to give out preview information because of a negative review (something no one does, and I've been writing about videogames for over 10 years now), why would we care? Fuck 'em. There are plenty of games to cover, and if they want to lose out on reaching our readers, that's their call (and one they don't make because they're not that stupid and/or petty).
Steve Bauman
Editor in Chief, Computer Games Magazine
