Company News How to make friends and influence previews

[Naked Ninja]

Wow, what exactly did you guys think E3 was? A massive party where each developer tries to outdo each other, they give out drinks and food and free presents, hell they put on frikken shows. And lets not forget the scantily clad women. Or the afterparties in hotel rooms. You and the entire bloody world have known about this massive attempt by developers to create excitement by any means necessary for years and years now.

But now you're up in arms over this Bethesda thing?!?!? See, this is what gives the impression that you're a bunch of naive teenagers. Get. A. Fucking. Grip.


And thats just the gaming industry. Every form of public enterprise tries to woo critics and pundits. You're opening a new glitzy restaurant? Great, throw a Grand Opening Party which invites celebrities and food critics, spend a small fortune trying to impress them. OH NO, OUR FOOD CRITICS ARE CORRUPTED TOO! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO THESE DAYS!

 

[sheek]

And thats just the gaming industry. Every form of public enterprise tries to woo critics and pundits. You're opening a new glitzy restaurant? Great, throw a Grand Opening Party which invites celebrities and food critics, spend a small fortune trying to impress them. OH NO, OUR FOOD CRITICS ARE CORRUPTED TOO! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO THESE DAYS!

You moron! A food critic needs to eat the food to judge it, that's his job. That's why you give them great food and service, you want them to taste and experience the best you've got. You make the restaurant look nice because that's what matters to consumers and therefore to critics. If on the other hand you paid for a food critic's luxury hotel room, parties and escort girls, then people would hear about it... There would be a scandal and you might be blacklisted from reviews and guides.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. Congratulations, you're right, the games 'journalism' 'industry' operates under other (much lower) standards than any other comparable industry.

E3 is obviously a failure (or a success if mass bribery is your goal). Nothing good ever comes out of it and it's a massive embarassment to gamers everywhere. The only thing good about E3 is if you're one of those geek journalists because it gives you a brief sense taking part in a social activity.

 

[Koby]

We all found the year away thing a bit wild, hard to give estimates about a game that early. It's more a first look than a preview really.

Ok, so, we have: first look, news & other tidbits, previews, screenshots, interviews and lastly, the almighty (according to some) final review.

One last batch of questions, if I may.

In your opinion, within the scope of game coverage influence only(!) by games magazines and online sites, which of the following carries more weight in regard to impact on sales figures, the sum of the information excluding the review as it was communicated throughout one whole year, or a single, relatively lengthy, detailed review?

(!) Advertising, promotional stunts, etc may not apply. However, if at all possible, try to answer without mitigating the potential influence of pre-supplied information on fan-base actions, word-to-mouth and similar activities that do not originate from the game publisher (btw, do you agree that there is a strong link between these two?).

To what extent the fluctuation is, differential wise, given a multitude of cases including corner cases(*) (i.e. it could be anything from 70%/30%, last figure being the impact of the final review, all the way to 1%/99% - almost complete dependence on final review)?

(*) Corner cases such as a game that throughout the year showed great potential, in interviews the devs giving out promises like they're one dollar bill in a stripper club, the screenshots look excellent and yet the final game left much to be desired, reaching a final score of 7 (in a 10 point scale).

Where are the majority of cases land, in that differential, or in other words what is the average case in the gaming journalism industry as it stands today? Where was it 5 and 10 years ago? Do you see a trend forming, and if so what kind of trend?

Regardless on you answer above, if you have perceived a trend where the impact of a final product review is diminution in contrast to the 'hype', would you revaluate your function/role as a game journalist? Do you think that is a reasonable ground to offer a more critic approach to the information supplied prior to final product evaluation?

If not, can you give an example of a situation/event that WILL cause you to revaluate your approach to covering information regarding a game prior to its launch?

Thanks in advance for taking the time
Koby

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Wow, what exactly did you guys think E3 was? A massive party where each developer tries to outdo each other, they give out drinks and food and free presents, hell they put on frikken shows. And lets not forget the scantily clad women. Or the afterparties in hotel rooms. You and the entire bloody world have known about this massive attempt by developers to create excitement by any means necessary for years and years now.

That's the point though. We do know about E3. It's because of that that we can say "well, they saw it at E3" and understand all that that entails. Big flashy booth, booth babes, babes in general, special VIP areas and all of that. It's when we don't know about it that it's a concern. Went out shooting AK47's? Bussed around town to see the sights?

And thats just the gaming industry. Every form of public enterprise tries to woo critics and pundits.

What's funny is that this kind of behaviour is also critiscised in every form of public enterprise. Including the health system:

• Reviews of all relevant studies about the giving of gifts show that doctors who accept them on average end up being more favourable to the sponsor's drug and more likely to prescribe it.

Boy, I sure hope I don't catch a disease. Who knows if what I'm given is actually going to be good for me or not?

You're opening a new glitzy restaurant? Great, throw a Grand Opening Party which invites celebrities and food critics, spend a small fortune trying to impress them. OH NO, OUR FOOD CRITICS ARE CORRUPTED TOO! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO THESE DAYS!

I ROFL at you and point you to the guidelines established by the Association of Food Journalists.

• Anonymity: Reviews should be conducted anonymously whenever possible. Critics should experience the restaurant just as ordinary patrons do. Reservations should be made in a name other than that of the reviewer and meals should be paid for using cash or credit cards in a name other than the critic. Take care to make reservations from telephones outside of work; many restaurants have caller identification systems. Just because a workstation telephone has a "blocked" telephone number doesn't mean the call won't be tagged as coming from the publication. Reviewers who have been recognized may want to make note of that in the review, especially if the treatment they receive differs markedly from what nearby tables are receiving. While anonymity is important when dining out, reviewers should write under their real names, not a pseudonym. Readers should also be able to respond to the reviews; a work telephone number or e-mail for the reviewer or the supervisory editor should be included with the review.

Recent case re anonymity.

You'll note the efforts they go to to ensure they experience "the real thing" and not "the flash in the pan, special performance". Maybe the gaming media could take a leaf out of their book? Maybe they should start insisting on some real game-play time so they can experience the game the way the end consumer might?

 

[Mr Happy]

I don't think we wonder, since we're both part of the fallout fan community.
Hell, so is Allen.
But I think that we both took it with the grain of salt indicated.
I mean, he called the community bad. The community responded by, what did I see here and elsewhere:
Calling for his sodomization with a red hot poker;
Calling for his murder; and
Calling for his children's retro-active abortion -- ie, murder.
At what point is he name calling and at what point is he making an observation that the community is responding to?

This is classic journalist stuff, clearly you show you re working on that account. I rechecked the first two pages on that thread in this forum and I didn't see one single notice of anyone wishing him harm. So like a true journalist you have digged deep and found the correct quotes to make this sounds as horrible as it is not. He was on the other hand the guy that went out of line, where the vast majority just laughed him off. that is taking into mind that no other place in the world is it easier to flame and find people flaming someone else than on an internet discussion board

What little sodomization I saw seemed to be mocking Allens choice of words anyway. Even if every other post was calling for death ad destruction, that still wouldnt validate or justify his claims. Any fan base will have a pretty big negative reaction if some big editor calls for their deaths. As an experiment, I suggest Allen try the same wording with, say, Star Wars fans, for lols. But like kris said, the majority laughed the whole thing off, and commented on the hilarity of an outlet claiming to have some journalistic standards and hoping to be taken seriously with an editor talking like that.

 

[sheek]

You're opening a new glitzy restaurant? Great, throw a Grand Opening Party which invites celebrities and food critics, spend a small fortune trying to impress them. OH NO, OUR FOOD CRITICS ARE CORRUPTED TOO! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO THESE DAYS!

I ROFL at you and point you to the guidelines established by the Association of Food Journalists.

Yeah, lol. Casual reviews, in the back pages/filler of general interest magazines wouldn't bother but actual professional restaurant reviewers are anonymous and recognize getting special treatment would ruin the review.

Not the same standards.

Interesting article about the health industry. It's not new but the details are interesting. I just wonder how that ex-partner of a doctor remembers exactly what she eat and how many bottles of wine were drunk at three events a year ago...

 

[Naked Ninja]

You must live on a different planet my alien friend. Your faith in the professional standards of the industry is rather amusing. Links to statements of standards on the internet are AWESOME, I admit, but prove nothing about the real world.

But you don't seem to get it. I wasn't mocking you for stating whether this is wrong or right behavior. I was laughing at the commotion over this particular case out of the countless other incidents, which just so happens to involve your pet whipping post, Bethesda Softworks. This whole like "Aha! Caught you in the act Pete!" thing is seriously tedious.

Rage angry nerds, Rage! You're sick and tired and you're going to continue to take it because you have no other choice.

 

[sheek]

Vault Dweller brought this Bethesda event up, I read it and reacted. I'm a reactive person, if it had been about BioShock or Mass Effect or the Twitcher I'd have reacted the same. And secondly I'd just listened to that interview with Allen Rausch which made me even more disgusted with journalists than usual.

 

[Section8]

What's funny is that this kind of behaviour is also critiscised in every form of public enterprise. Including the health system.

Hell, I'm just a retail manager and I'm not allowed to accept gratuities from visiting reps, for fear that it would predispose me to their products in favour of their competitors - which we also sell.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Allen Rausch reacted badly to the type of people who describe themselves as "glittering gems of hatred"? Surprising, really.

Come now. Most of you wear your spitefulness so proudly. Don't get all wounded pride on us now lads. Your hard work of bitching all day on the internet has paid off, you've finally caused one of them to get annoyed and snap at you. Give yourselves a clap on the back and go grab a beer to celebrate.

 

[Amasius]

Allen Rausch reacted badly to the type of people who describe themselves as "glittering gems of hatred"? Surprising, really.

Come now. Most of you wear your spitefulness so proudly. Don't get all wounded pride on us now lads. Your hard work of bitching all day on the internet has paid off, you've finally caused one of them to get annoyed and snap at you. Give yourselves a clap on the back and go grab a beer to celebrate.

You don't get it, right? It's actually quite irrelevant that Allen Rausch insulted the Fallout fans. But there are indications for efforts [conspiracy] directed by Bethesda [/conspiracy] to discredit Fallout fans to a broader public as fanatical loonys nobody has to take serious so that they can't hurt the arising hype. Just take a look at the QTT and SA forums.

 

[Hazelnut]

Ah, nice to meet you all, but the I'm honestly not going to stick around with a slam on my profession as a custom tag.
Enjoy explaining to yourselves how it was all someone elses fault; I'll be reading and checking my messages.

Please don't take robur with you. He at least doesn't keep dodging the issues.

I've not got long, as I'm hellishly busy at work, but I just wanted to echo this. I'd also like you to stay around, deadairis, but only if you try a lot harder to see our points of view like (some?) of us are trying to understand yours. Otherwise, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. (oh, and also realise that there is no real 'party line' here, and many of us don't have all the time in the world to spend here. Also, there's a large range of age, maturity and seriousness in the members here. You should have seen things after Oblivions' release - the Codex was getting slammed by people for the activities of new members who were largely disenfranchised ES fans... we termed this ESF refugees)

 

[Top Hat]

Ah, nice to meet you all, but the I'm honestly not going to stick around with a slam on my profession as a custom tag.
Enjoy explaining to yourselves how it was all someone elses fault; I'll be reading and checking my messages.

So, it's all fine and dandy for people to say that a group of people should "get a disease and die", but when people say a group of people "are a bunch of weasels" it's time to leave?

 

[elander_]

Come now. Most of you wear your spitefulness so proudly. Don't get all wounded pride on us now lads. Your hard work of bitching all day on the internet has paid off, you've finally caused one of them to get annoyed and snap at you. Give yourselves a clap on the back and go grab a beer to celebrate.

Who exactly are "us"?

I care for the opinion of real journalists who at least capable of understanding the meaning of ethics in journalism, not for grovelers and people who don't care or don't realize the responsibility of the profession they have. Grovelers, whores, junkies they are all in the same bag of flees and social parasites.

 

[Greatatlantic]

I must say, I think robur won his argument back on page 2. Not sure what the next couple of pages were about, but I think he's right: Publisher's paying the expenses of journalists is not an overt conflict of interest or inherently a bribe. I have a hard time blaming any company for merely "advertising" its product. And thats what these events are really about, telling some people about the game so they can tell others. I know EA hosts Madden or its college knock off tournaments on college campuses largely to get people interested in buying the games. Its a standard business (not video game business but all business) practice, the throwing in freebies that have nothing to do with what you're trying to sell.

Notice, however, I said nothing about "coverage contracts" being alright, even if they are largely unnecessary due to journalists being so positive regardless. Heck, even unspoken deals about never being negative or risk never being invited to see more previews. Robur insists he never signed one, I see no reason to doubt him. Honestly, I think we (the glittering gems of hatred) are so upset over the Fallout 3 coverage so far that we're making any journalist we can get in our reach pay for it.

Though upset for very good reason. This is the tagline I've been searching for: "Bethesda drops tried and true Fallout approach and makes Post-Apocalyptic Oblvion with Guns!". Instead, there is a ton of praised heaped on Bethesda for "keeping the feelings" of the original Fallout. Nevermind that they are either going to break canon or create one heck of a Deus Ex Machina explanation for why BoS and Super Mutants are on the East Coast. Or that places like NMA have pointed out where Bethesda's art direction is pretty different then Interplay's.

Honestly, we (the Codex) are better served by focusing on what is written, not how Bethseda got people there, which like I said I think robut proved his point about it not overly influencing writing, i.e. Bethesda could have sent everyone a slide show and the coverage would have been largely unaltered.

 

[Brother None]

Not sure what the next couple of pages were about, but I think he's right: Publisher's paying the expenses of journalists is not an overt conflict of interest or inherently a bribe

4-hour press preview surrounded by a lunch, dinner and one-night stay at a hotel = covering expenses

4-hour press preview surrounded by a two-night stay at a swanky hotel, dinner(s) and a private party = bribe

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I must say, I think robur won his argument back on page 2. Not sure what the next couple of pages were about, but I think he's right: Publisher's paying the expenses of journalists is not an overt conflict of interest or inherently a bribe.

Be careful with the adjectives you throw in. It's not an "overt" conflict of interest. Are you suggesting the potential still exists for it to be a "covert" (hidden) conflict of interest? And not "inherently" a bribe? Form what I understand you're saying, you're saying that it's not a clear cut conflict or a bribe by nature but you're not ruling our the possibility that it might still have some impact in either of those areas. IE: That it has potential to be a conflict of interest and a bribe, depending on the circumstances (which could include such fickle things as how excited the reviewer is to go on a particular trip). Given that, doesn't it behoove them to disclose events like this?

I think the problem is events like this make the gaming media lose their impartiality. Look at the other thread where Patrick the GameSpy Journalist raised issues about "people losing jobs". I'm pretty sure we had a journo here before that mentioned "these people [developers] are my friends" and the problem he had with saying bad things about them because shucks, sure the game might suck but he knew they were trying hard because he'd had a few drinks with them and they'd told him about the family cat.

All of a sudden, critiscising someone for a poor quality product becomes just that little bit harder.

I have a hard time blaming any company for merely "advertising" its product.

Is that where the problem lies though or does it lie with journalists not disclosing that they've attended these advertiser paid for events?

Bethesda could have sent everyone a slide show and the coverage would have been largely unaltered.

I don't really believe that. There's a difference between showing a slideshow around the office and saying "is this all they sent us?" versus the "so how was your trip?" conversation. You need to understand influencing someone's opinion isn't necessarily an overt act. You don't need to directly tell them to buy it / sell it / like it. You just need to make it harder for them to hate it. That's when "Well gee, I met with the developers and they were really nice guys, so even though the game did have some negatives, I won't be so critical on them because they have good intentions." suddenly becomes a 5/5 review with the promise that "I'm sure all the games flaws will be fixed in a patch and then this game will be really awesome". Irrespective of how major those flaws are or how flawed the design principles were behind their implementation.

And hey Kharn, the forums on your German website don't work.

 

[elander_]

"4-hour press preview surrounded by a two-night stay at a swanky hotel, dinner(s) and a private party = bribe"

And that's only one side of the question. Who would trust the New York Times if 90% of the money they get would come advertising contracts for what they are supposed to write about?

Greatatlantic this situation is more than discussed in sites like Gamasutra and IGDA. Please inform yourself properly and don't discuss this matter just on a trust bases.

The point is credible journalism in games doesn't exist. What exists is an hype machine of lies of condescendency that serves the highest bider. That's why games from Microsoft, Bioware, Bethesda, always get good reviews. It's not because the quality of the games but because there's a greater chance to make some money with them and sell publicity contracts.

 

[robur]

Not sure what the next couple of pages were about, but I think he's right: Publisher's paying the expenses of journalists is not an overt conflict of interest or inherently a bribe

4-hour press preview surrounded by a lunch, dinner and one-night stay at a hotel = covering expenses

4-hour press preview surrounded by a two-night stay at a swanky hotel, dinner(s) and a private party = bribe

I live on the West Coast of the USA. Bethesda is on the East Coast. Please show me how I can make my way there on day 1, see the game on day 2 and talk to developers until almost 6 pm, get to the airport and fly out in the evening of the same day. I've actually missed flights because I was stuck in afternoon traffic to the airport - and that was earlier, like 2, 3 pm.

Day 1 saw me arriving at 11pm, dinner was already gone by then and I shared a cookie with Mike from Kotaku. Day 2 see above, day 3 was traveling back to the West Coast.

That ain't bribery.

 

[robur]

I don't really believe that. There's a difference between showing a slideshow around the office and saying "is this all they sent us?" versus the "so how was your trip?" conversation. You need to understand influencing someone's opinion isn't necessarily an overt act.

Two thoughts: When I was still working in an office, we would ask "so how was the game?" - we couldn't care less about the trip. If people talked more about the trip than the game, we all knew that it probably wouldn't yield be enough material for a 20 page preview, to exaggerate slightly.

And I can see how people can get influenced by covert stuff like hotels. But I, Roland, make a concious decision not to. Because otherwise I could as well join a PR company.

And: When game developers show you a game without you being able to play it yourself, it's always harder to "hate" it than when you can play it yourself. When they show you stuff, you have to take it at face value and have to try to lure them out of their cover by asking some questions. That's all I've been doing in the last 14 years really.

 

[Krafter]

But there are indications for efforts [conspiracy] directed by Bethesda [/conspiracy] to discredit Fallout fans to a broader public as fanatical loonys nobody has to take serious so that they can't hurt the arising hype. Just take a look at the QTT and SA forums.

Remember that stuff about marketing shills being all over the gaming message boards? Well, if those guys are anywhere (and they most certainly are), they are at SA.

 

[Amasius]

But there are indications for efforts [conspiracy] directed by Bethesda [/conspiracy] to discredit Fallout fans to a broader public as fanatical loonys nobody has to take serious so that they can't hurt the arising hype. Just take a look at the QTT and SA forums.

Remember that stuff about marketing shills being all over the gaming message boards? Well, if those guys are anywhere (and they most certainly are), they are at SA.

And I thought I am paranoid.

Well, I wouldn't wonder if Pete has planted some plants to sing the song of Bethesda, but certainly not everybody who sings that little song is payed to do so. I guess that most SA/QTT members just feel insulted that there are some nerds who are even more hardcore than they are. :wink:

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Ah, surprise, surprise. One of the most anticipated sequels in the history of PC gaming is announced, Bethesda actually know how to sell their ideas, and the journo whores dare to write their big, fat cover stories. Blasphemy.

I mean, the ammount of space and attention that is given to a game is obviously determinded by how much a deal the editors think it's gonna be. As such, it has to self itself. As Fallout3 is a Fallout sequel already, that makes already more than half the deal. At least. Then there's Bethesda obviously doing a, dare I say serious job at selling the idea of Fallout3. :D I mean, I've heard of incidents where editors were sent nothing but a hastily written press release and (in the case of a review) a copy of the game in a slipcase. Rumor has it of cases in which the lads had to run out and aquire a copy for themselves, no kidding. Plain existence of generic ideas isn't enough to convince anybody to make a big deal out of anythting. If a game wants the space, it has to sell itself. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's just plain business.

Then along comes something as small-ish, bedroom coded and non-advertised as Darwinia, convincing many a mag to drop everything else ASAP because of its perceived brilliance. So there. In any case, I'd be careful with making generalizations like that. Still a funny read. :D

Those all have gameplay more primitive than some Ultima titles, Wasteland, and some of the Wizardry titles yet sell all the time and recieve glowing reviews as fgreat role-playing by the gaming journalism industry as a whole.

Maybe it's because not everyone judges each and every game against some idiotic self-defined dogma (or a strict, even more idiotic rule of design each and every game is demanded to follow), and judges those games on their own merits? You know, if they're actually fun? If they work? Or maybe it's just that somebody sees those games in a different light than you? Or something? To summarize, and sorry for once again using Codex vocabulary, I hope you will appreciate it: Here you come off as nothing but a bitter man that for some reason feels like he hasn't been proper fucked the way he thinks and demands to be fucked in a long time and now he's just being bitter about it. On the internet. And he has to show it to the World. At each and every turn and whenever opportunity arrives.

But then, thinking about it, that's what the Codex is all about. Isn't it? :D I think I've said it elsewhere, but if you really need to scapegoat anyone for an absence of ideas you like to see re-hashed (or rather developed further, I hope), do it to the people who released the various Troika games in the state they've been released in. For instance. Fallout wasn't that blank a sheet when it came to bugs either, while we're at it. In any case, that'd actually make sense. At least a little.

 

[Koby]

Maybe it's because not everyone judges each and every game against some idiotic self-defined dogma (or a strict, even more idiotic rule of design each and every game is demanded to follow), and judges those games on their own merits? You know, if they're actually fun?

Interesting, so basically, it doesn't matter what kind of game is it, only if it is a good game or a bad one. There is really no need to discriminate between different games, lets just mash everything together, but why stop there, lets mash all the platform together, who cares that you specifically don’t own every console, what's important is how good it is, right?

And if you think that was hyperbole check this out.

What you are saying is the equivalent of – "Stop with all your petty preferences, you are all petty petty people, if I see a good looking women I want to sleep with her, the more good looking she is the more I want to sleep with her, I am not petty like all of you, I don’t care if she has a Penis.

 

[Ladonna]

Robur, what DU said about 'Making it harder to criticise someone' is fair enough though wouldn't you agree?

If someone goes and buys you a flash dinner, gives away lots of toys, etc, then its normal, especially for one of the younger set, to look more favourably on a game than if it was just code and a couple of emails from their publisher sent direct to your office. Even more so if they start a personal rapport with you on good terms.

I would think that its extremely difficult to actually have any friends in the gaming industry being a journalist. After all, every company has invariably produced games that were, at the very least, worse than a preceding title. Being critical of such a product would surely engender a 'bad feeling' between the journo and the dev.

Also, I agree with others here that the constant gushing of 'Oh, the old Fallout feeling is there!! Its going to be a wonderful continuation of a great series!! Its definately a Fallout RPG!!!' are really getting on my nerves. Even in movie reviews there are wildly different critiques of box office hits. Book reviews are just the same. I don't think I have ever seen a single book where every book critic has gave glowing, not to mention oddly similar, previews/reviews about a product.

Why is the gaming media so different?

Also, what mags did you work for back in the old days? Might have read some of your stuff.