Publishers pull game content from reviewers when previews are "Less-than-totally-positive"

[Coquito]

1up blog

So first GameSpot gets called on, then EGM rides in as a knight in shining armor? Drama, drama. I just want to play some decent games already.

Banned
This is a reprint of my editorial that appears in the February issue of EGM. A lot of people are talking about it thanks to Video Game Media Watch, Kotaku, Joystiq, etc. -- so I thought I'd put the original text here for people to read.

It used to be game companies would pull advertising if they wanted to punish a magazine for unfavorable coverage. In more recent times, they're pulling the coverage as well. It's an interesting setup: Don't let us see the games, and we can't write anything bad about them. But don't let us see the games, and we can't write anything good about them, either.

Gamemakers have been taking issue with our reviews for as long as EGM's been around (almost 19 years now). It goes with the territory: Be honest and tough with your critiques, and you're going to piss just about everybody off at some point. But when I took over as editor-in-chief in 2001, I also wanted us to get more real with our previews. I was tired of the press-release rehashes our industry had become accustomed to, so I asked for more sincerity and opinions from our writers and editors. Naturally, you have to be fair -- the products aren't finished yet, after all -- but judging from reader feedback, our opinionated previews have been a hit.

Except with some game publishers, of course. Less-than-totally-positive previews don't sit well with those who are used to those press-release rehashes. Combine that with our candid reviews, and you can imagine the consequences that we have to face constantly.

For the time being, you'll get little, late, or no coverage of the following products: anything Mortal Kombat (they didn't like our reviews), anything from Sony's sports department (ditto), and now, anything from Ubisoft (it seems our coverage of Assassin's Creed was the last straw). So in case you're wondering why you're seeing so little of these games in our magazines and on our websites, now you know.

What do we do now? Nothing. We won't treat these products or companies any differently, and we'll just cover them to the best of our own abilities, with or without their support. Because, after all, we're writing for you, the reader -- not them.

***

P.S. I appreciate all the support from the readers, the industry...even PR people! We're not necessarily looking for any pats on the back or medals, but the kind words are appreciated nonetheless. For those other press outlets looking to interview me on this particular subject (G4, Gamertag Radio, Cranky Geeks, etc.): I appreciate the invitations, but I'm only doing one interview, here with Media Coverage, and will be on the next EGM Live* podcast talking about this, and that's it. I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this or look like I'm trying to milk this or anything. Between those two and this editorial, I've pretty much said everything I needed to say.

 

[CalvinHobbes]

They can try and hide the crappy reviews from magazines and even online but you'll never stop word of mouth.

Hey game companies: Either work on releasing better products or at the very least listen to what the reviewers have to say and go back and fix the game.

 

[purbeast0]

that is fucking pathetic.

the only reason one would NOT want a company to review/preview a game is because they KNOW that it is not a good game and that it's not what they were hoping it would be. they are basically admitting that they half ass games and release them knowing they have flaws that the devs were too lazy to fix it.

if I was ubisoft I would take the ripping of assasins creed and turn that into positives, getting the attitude "oh well you thought assassins creed sucked? well wait until you see just how good the sequel is!"

 

[R Nilla]

I used to wonder why previews were always so overly optimistic. Even if a game looked like it was going to flat out suck, the preview remained positive. I never really thought much about it but now I understand.

I think it's funny that EGM has been banned by Sony's sports department. Do they still release anything? I remember for the PS2 their games always looked horrible, like a half generation behind (graphically, anyway).

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
that is fucking pathetic.

the only reason one would NOT want a company to review/preview a game is because they KNOW that it is not a good game and that it's not what they were hoping it would be. they are basically admitting that they half ass games and release them knowing they have flaws that the devs were too lazy to fix it.

if I was ubisoft I would take the ripping of assasins creed and turn that into positives, getting the attitude "oh well you thought assassins creed sucked? well wait until you see just how good the sequel is!"

I'm willing to bet sometimes it's more of an issue of time than an issue of lazy developers (i.e., Kane & Lynch). Given the release date, the devs don't have time to make all the fixes and polishing needed, and instead of delaying to smooth things out, they are forced to release an unfinished product. Of course, sometimes it is the devs fault, and they just make a shitty game, period. And other times it's both (EA? ).

 

[Anubis]

how did they review assassins creed? most places praised it, the Mag the i respect the most (Play) because i agree with their ratings of games more so then anyone else, gave it a 10 with the only negative point being "someone will find something to complain about"

IMO the game kicked ass

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: purbeast0
that is fucking pathetic.

the only reason one would NOT want a company to review/preview a game is because they KNOW that it is not a good game and that it's not what they were hoping it would be. they are basically admitting that they half ass games and release them knowing they have flaws that the devs were too lazy to fix it.

if I was ubisoft I would take the ripping of assasins creed and turn that into positives, getting the attitude "oh well you thought assassins creed sucked? well wait until you see just how good the sequel is!"

I'm willing to bet sometimes it's more of an issue of time than an issue of lazy developers (i.e., Kane & Lynch). Given the release date, the devs don't have time to make all the fixes and polishing needed, and instead of delaying to smooth things out, they are forced to release an unfinished product. Of course, sometimes it is the devs fault, and they just make a shitty game, period. And other times it's both (EA? ).

yah but it's someones fault. if they are to meet a release date and it's not up to a quality product, then delay it instead of putting out a half assed game. sure maybe short term for them it will hurt em, but long term it will help them out.

as much as we all hate delays, a game being delayed is the best thing that could possibly happen to it for us gamers.

 

[purbeast0]

i also like EGM the best out of any magazine because they seem to be brutally honest about everything.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Anubis
how did they review assassins creed? most places praised it, the Mag the i respect the most (Play) because i agree with their ratings of games more so then anyone else, gave it a 10 with the only negative point being "someone will find something to complain about"

IMO the game kicked ass

whether you want to believe it or not, people who think AC kicked ass are in the minority.

and my sample is the vocal gamers on the internet as well as major gaming sites/mags.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Anubis
how did they review assassins creed? most places praised it, the Mag the i respect the most (Play) because i agree with their ratings of games more so then anyone else, gave it a 10 with the only negative point being "someone will find something to complain about"

IMO the game kicked ass

whether you want to believe it or not, people who think AC kicked ass are in the minority.

and my sample is the vocal gamers on the internet as well as major gaming sites/mags.

really? what dont people like about it

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
as much as we all hate delays, a game being delayed is the best thing that could possibly happen to it for us gamers.

I agree, and it's good to see that happening more often (GTA IV, Mercenaries 2, etc.). :thumbsup:

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Anubis
how did they review assassins creed? most places praised it, the Mag the i respect the most (Play) because i agree with their ratings of games more so then anyone else, gave it a 10 with the only negative point being "someone will find something to complain about"

IMO the game kicked ass

whether you want to believe it or not, people who think AC kicked ass are in the minority.

and my sample is the vocal gamers on the internet as well as major gaming sites/mags.

really? what dont people like about it

People say it was too repetitive (but most games are repetitive). And toward the end of the game, it's frustrating trying to go anywhere because the guards are too touchy. But I still think it was a really good game. I think the people who think it was a crappy game are judging it based on the expectations they had for the game - that it would be one of the top games of the year. It isn't one of the top games of the year, but it's deserving of the ratings it has gotten (~8s)

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: Coquito
So first GameSpot gets called on, then EGM rides in as a knight in shining armor?

I've been reading EGM for about the last 8 years (off and on, but mostly on), and I always enjoy reading the editorial snippet at the beginning. Atleast once a year, they address the issue of how publishers try to strong-arm them into good words about said publisher's games. I think last year they even mentioned how if they receive any gifts (which apparently happen often) worth over a certain amount (it was something small, like $2 or $5 or something), they send it back to the publisher. The only reason they didn't send the really cheap stuff back is because it would then cost them money to send some of it back.

So, they've been doing this for years, they aren't necessarily the "knight in shining armor". I'm sure they've simply addressed it at this point because of the gamespot issues. However, this is the first time ever that I remember them actually naming names .

 

[raystorm]

Originally posted by: Anubis
how did they review assassins creed? most places praised it, the Mag the i respect the most (Play) because i agree with their ratings of games more so then anyone else, gave it a 10 with the only negative point being "someone will find something to complain about"

IMO the game kicked ass

EGM game Assassins Creed 7, 6 and 4.5. I owned the game and thought it was fine though I got real tired of it near the end. I think the 4.5 is ultra harsh though. I would personally give it around a 7. Its a good game but I wish you could do more in those wonderful looking cities. I also wish I could go rambo on those nutjobs that push you around especially later in the game where the slightest move alerts the guards.

 

[Coquito]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
... I'm sure they've simply addressed it at this point because of the gamespot issues. ...

That what I said. They saw what happened & took the opportunity to single themselves out as the righteous leaders of the industry. With more reviewers being pressured, doing what's expected(review games honestly), now becomes a selling point, rather then something you've come to take as fact.

I'm not knocking them, just pointing it out.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Anubis

really? what dont people like about it

The fact that you do the same 4 exact things for the entire game. That and the other issues like overly simple combat, horrendous AI.

 

[randay]

is this really a surprise? i would think this is logical. it doesnt benefit a company to support a reviewer who is only gonna give a bad review. regardless of if they just make crappy games or not, what else do you expect them to do?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: randay
is this really a surprise? i would think this is logical. it doesnt benefit a company to support a reviewer who is only gonna give a bad review. regardless of if they just make crappy games or not, what else do you expect them to do?

Well yes obviously from a business and marketing perspective that is true. It is also a shrewd move for EGM to complain about it to get the fan boys to put pressures on these game companies.

 

[JackBurton]

I think they should release the names of the companies pulling their ads so we'll know who's trying to hide their crap.

 

[imported_Imp]

Is anyone surprised? I can't recall EVER reading a single bad preview even with games that get sub-50% scores when reviews. I remember PC Gamer's reviews (long while back) use to blow the game and the only negatives were extremely general and vague comments about an insignificant aspect of the game. Gotta keep in mind that they are giving the previewer the "privilege" of playing a game in development, so I guess they should feel compelled to write something nice...

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I think they should release the names of the companies pulling their ads so we'll know who's trying to hide their crap.

It is in the thread summary.