EGM Gets The Cold Shoulder From Sony, Midway, & Ubisoft - Newsworthy?
by Chad Lakkis on January 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm
For those who missed it, EGM (according to Editor Dan Hsu) was supposedly cut off from receiving preview and review copies of games by Sony, Midway, and Ubisoft due to what the publishers felt where unfavorable review scores and or practices.
While I can understand why Dan may have felt the need to call out the poor sportsmanship of Sony’s Sports Division, the low blow of Midway’s Mortal Kombat Team, and the stealthy exit of Ubisoft, I question his decision to do so, and can’t help but feel that an unnecessary trend is beginning to take place.
My feelings are that gaming sites, as well as printed publications, will now start to air their dirty laundry in an effort to proactively defend themselves, and reassure readers that they are on the up and up.
I sure hope that I am wrong, because while I am not saying that this is the case here with EGM, I really don’t want to be reading about how enormous publications/websites will now have to resort to buying games (just like their readers) in order to review them — Boo freaking hoo.
Most gaming outlets (including us) do not receive every game that they review directly from the publisher in advance, and at no cost. In fact, many purchase the majority of their games just like you do.
While I do not necessarily agree with the way the publishers treated EGM here, they are free to decide how they want to distribute their product. Below you will find a reprint of Dan’s editorial from the February issue of EGM via his blog page on 1up.com
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.
In closing, while I agree that these scenarios do occur, I personally don’t think we should be bickering about them to our readers, and I truly hope that this does not become the norm.
 |
|
- Midway Delivers Fatality to Austin Studio
- Midway Games: Getting to the “Core” of the PS3 Development Issues
- Midway Releases Six New TNA iMPACT Screens
- BlackSite: Area 51 Free Demo Available on Xbox Live Marketplace Now
- E3 “Min-E3″ Conference Schedule Released
- Haze Never Coming Out on Xbox 360
- Sony Responds to Microsoft’s LithGoW Announcement with… LithGOW?
- E3 2007: Midway Unveils Lineup
on January 9, 2008 11:33 pm
Chad
You are 100% correct and I agree with you completely. Now, let’s talk about a raise…
Seriously, though, there is a big difference between journalistic integrity and muckraking in an attempt to look candid. I think EGM may have crossed that line, though I think I too may have called out those companies if I was in his position. Maybe he did the right thing in this case.. or maybe not. I certainly do agree with you, Chad, that dirty laundry should be kept in the basket, not hanging in the front yard.
on January 9, 2008 11:34 pm
haha
on January 9, 2008 11:55 pm
man. everybody is fighting these days. i’m totally on board with honest previews though. maybe egm just got a little to critical with the unfinished games. it must be hard to draw the line between “this game sucks now but could be really good in the future” and “this game just…sucks.”
maybe previews are a bad idea in the first place. no-one ever goes into to see the rough cut from an unfinished film…
but who am i kidding, i love reading previews..
on January 9, 2008 11:59 pm
Jon,
More power to them. Say what you want to say as long as you are willing to hold yourself accountable for what you are saying.
I have no problem with speaking your mind and stating your opinion on a review or preview, however taking offense when a publisher decides to no longer extend you the courtesy (and it is a courtesy) of being able to receive their games in advance and at no cost is childish in my opinion.
Chad-
on January 10, 2008 2:50 am
EGM: Please give us a copy of your new game before it actually comes out. (If we get advanced reviews, we sell more magazines.)
Publisher: Okay, EGM. (If we get a good review, we can put that on our box and sell more games.)
EGM reviews game…
EGM: Your game sucks. Now, please send us your next game.
Publisher: Eat shit, EGM.
EGM: But, but, but… we will make less money if we don’t have timely reviews. You’re hurting our business!
Publisher: That’s because you’re hurting our business by giving us bad reviews, asshole. And then you have the balls to ask us for some more free stuff? Sorry, but no.
EGM: That’s not fair! I’m telling! Waaaah!
With the way EGM was slamming games, I can’t understand why they didn’t see this coming. Now I just wonder if EGM will be more critical when reviewing games they actually had to pay for, just out of spite, or will they give it a better score than it deserves in order to win back the favor of the publishers? I think Dan Hsu did his magazine a great disservice by announcing this situation the way he did. If anything, I’m now probably less trusting of their review scores than I used to be.
I hold myself accountable for what I just said.
on January 10, 2008 5:06 am
I don’t think his openness on the subject is good for anybody. Dan (Landis, not Hsu) is right about trusting their reviews less. On one hand, they may start giving better scores to win them back, but on the other they may start giving them worse scores out of spite… or they may just be the only honest scores they give since they now have nothing to lose from those publishers, but everything else will be fluffed up in fear of losing advertisement dollars from other companies. To me, this is just an attempt to separate themselves from the whole Gamespot/Ubisoft debacle that is rippling around the world of video game journalism.
on January 10, 2008 9:28 am
Of course you need the get the game from the distributor, at least when you’re writing for a magazine because if you wouldn’t your magazine would be old when it came out, filled with reviews of games that people have already bought…
on January 10, 2008 10:06 am
There’s too much politics to trust big name review sites/magazines anymore. I try and find honest opinions from smaller sites and users/forums and reference metacritic to get an overall feel.
Why should a publisher send them a preview copy if it is hurting their business when they get a bad review? Likewise, the magazine has an incentive to give a good review to keep that business. Doesn’t sound like you can be too honest there.
on January 10, 2008 11:58 am
I kind of admire EGM for this.
I can understand what Dan says up top but at the same time if the game isn’t a steaming pile of crap it’s not going to get the horrible reviews that these companies are whining about.
EGM isn’t the only entity that profits from an early review. For the developers/publishers it’s a way to get game information out to the public… and it’s free for them. EGM doesn’t create the quality of the game, they just let the public know about it. Would you blame a car magazine for letting it’s readers know that a vehicle was unsafe if they knew about it?
The reader of the magazine is the most important customer of the magazine. With no reader, there’s no need to advertise or write the review in the first place. If the developers and publishers don’t want to put money and effort into coming up with something that warrants a good review, they should not expect the reviewer to report otherwise to the reader.
I think these companies also forgetting that even though their game might be good, they are competing with other titles. There are great games being developed at the same time and as these other games reach the market, expectations change. When someone puts a lot of effort into creating a new game with incredible story, art and depth, such as BioShock, a company can’t expect to throw out “Generic Shooter, Fighter, or Puzzle Sequel 5″ and expect it to be received in the same manner.
on January 10, 2008 2:29 pm
Great news! It’s about time there some accountability to the corporate shrills fabricating the “reviews”. Too many times games have recieved 9/10 or better which plainly sucked ass! Assassin’s Creed? Sorry, over hyped in its fullest.
This actually makes me want to read EGM going foward. I do not care if game reviews are availble prior to launch as for I’m a little more educated in the sense of the current trend of “rush it out and fix it later, if we can” mentality too many developers and publishers are practicing.
Awesome job EGM! Respect +1
on January 10, 2008 8:01 pm
Hey everyone,
I want to clarify a few things here, and then I have some far fetched food for thought.
First off, I am not bashing Dan, I simply think that we (all writers/publications in general) are better than stooping to the level of the publishers in this instance.
I am not saying that what the publishers are doing is right, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t entitled to doing it.
In my opinion, the only viable solution here is for gaming publications and gaming writers alike to unite and agree to a set of laws if you will that we would all abide by.
For example, we no longer accept free stuff from publishers. Everyone agrees to buy the games the old fashion way and review them with no strings attached. Previews would then be based solely on beta/demo releases made available to the general public as well via outlets such as XBL and the PS Store.
And as for the few that decide to still accept the freebies — well, we can question their allegiance if and when the time comes.
If this were to become a reality, I can all but guarantee you that the most publishers will long for the way things used to be, because this type of change would eliminate their influence almost completely.
It’s a stretch, but since I honestly do not think there is anything we can do as a publication put in the situation that EGM was put in, to change the mind of the publisher, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Thoughts?
Chad-
on January 10, 2008 9:49 pm
hmmm well IMO
- Dan Hsu comments may seem a bit whinney at first but eventually the EGM readers are bound to ask why certain reviews are missing from there magazine
- Now in order to keep Publishers happy the reviewer has to be critical & honest in there review. For example if a game is criticized for being short or having bad controls they should also try to give some input on what might have made it better. If they review it by saying The Controls are crappy & the Graphics are Horrible etc etc etc… that leaves a bad taste in the publishers mouth. If that were the case I would probably withdraw my support & games too. Although if they are reviewing it honestly without the harsh criticizing than the withdrawl of support is a stupid decesion but one they have the right to make. Although it harms both Publisher & publication.
- Now what Chad says above is true if the reviewers buy there own games the strings are cut and they can say whatever they want without consequnce. Which is good if they are being honest and not spiteful but will result in late reviews which might hurt the business side of things on thier end. Now if reviewers used Demo’s that came off of the PSN or XBL the cords are also cut free but if I am correct the drawback there is that some demo’s are extremely short and I think reviewers get much longer demo’s to preview than what is brought to the general public. I think that could be a problem.
- Now as a Game player myself and one who tries to keep up on the news. I have witnessed and read about many Now-Gen games that are brought out without proper QA testing, many with bugs and are usually shorter due to what I think is the same time restraints as Last-Gen games. I personally think a lot more of that time should be spent in QA because I am tired of games being released early weather it be for christmas or whatever the case. I am tired of hearing of games that are released half done then requiring some patch to fix. I don’t like delays but I rather wait a few months than have a game that works properly only half the time.
What do you guys think?