- 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?

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-

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

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.

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.

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.

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-

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..

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.