Publishers Get a Taste of “Shoe”
Electronic Gaming Monthly’s Editor-in-Chief Dan “Shoe” Hsu has an interesting editorial in the latest edition of his magazine. The bulk of Hsu’s column deals with topics familiar to VGMWatch.com readers: publishers bullying game publications; overly positive previews; and editorial integrity. In fact, Hsu himself has covered these issues in past columns before. However, what makes his latest editorial unique is what he’s always shied away from doing in the past: it names names.
According to Hsu, Midway’s Mortal Kombat development team, Sony’s sports game division, and Ubisoft have all allegedly banned EGM from further coverage of their products. The reason: Apparently, they didn’t take too kindly to EGM’s review coverage of their games. Still, Hsu maintains that EGM “won’t treat these products or companies any differently.” We have yet to confirm these allegations with the publishers mentioned. However, if the editorial’s claims are accurate, VGMWatch.com is certainly disappointed with these publishers’ behavior. As corporations, publishers have every right to ban any publication they want for poor coverage. But that doesn’t make it right. Gamers should feel disrespected as well.
VGMWatch.com staff will be contacting the companies involved with this story for further comment. In the mean time, readers may want to pick up the current issue of EGM to view Hsu’s editorial for themselves.
on January 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
ubisoft says the egm can no longer review their games? wowwww.
on January 9th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Bravo Dan. I always loved EGM since the very first issue and this is the greatest proof of love for your readers. Now we know some of the publishers that buy reviews for their crap games and this is the way it should be so keep revealing those lamers. This reminds me a review prostitute: gamespot.com
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I’ve always enjoyed the integrity of EGM for several years now and i’ll always know that shoe and the others work their hardest to keep the magazine honest about the highs and lows of any games, which is why i’ll continue to support them via subscription
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:08 am
I hardly fill disrespected as I have long considered EGM to be a pile of dribble, personally I am happy to see publishers wrestle some of the influence away from the reviewers whose reviews often decide whether a company stays in the black or falls into the red and ultimately into oblivion. These mostly derogatory reviews are often the only experience perspective customers will have with a game, most gamers trust reviewers implicitly and in doing so often overlook gems.
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Linton, would you mind explaining what gives you such a viewpoint? Do you work for one of the above companies? A friend of yours? After the GameSpot tragedies, that kind of response is hardly warranted. It is hard to get a game in the black if reviewers don’t like it… but honestly, reviews from websites like EGM are as honest and unbiased as they get. To shut them out like this kind of says “If we get reviewed, less people will buy our game, because they’ll realize it sucks” ala the third Pirates of the Carribean, which wasn’t reviewed until a day or two before release (as opposed to 300, which some saw months in advance).
So, tell me again, why is this a good idea?
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Excuse me, Linton, I’m glad you don’t “fill” disrespected, but I do. Your post, though, makes little sense. The publishers are “wrestling away” influence? They don’t need to wrestle anything away, it is not like someone is forcing them to send their games to the magazines.
Besides, this idea that a games fate is decided by the review scores that EGM gives it is laughable. Tell that to a game like Beyond Good & Evil. Great scores, but no one bought it.
To me it just sounds like EGM gave your favorite game a bad score and now you are all waded in your underpants about it.
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Nice spin there Linton.. OR, they could be giving accurate reviews and doing the customers a favor in not wasting their hard earned money. THATS WHAT WE BUY THE MAGS FOR. To give us their opinion on if its trash or not. Dont make shitty games for us to waste money on then, and you’ll NEVER have to worry about “black” or “red”. You’re an absolute buffoon. If the game is GOOD.. the game will sell, its really that simple. Did magazine reviews sell original mario brothers? Good games will sell themselves. $20 linton works for UBIsh*t, im sure any review lower then an 8 would be considered a “derogatory” review to you, even if its the mostly worthless pile of trash ever made. We NEED/WANT EGM to set it straight, much kudo’s to them!
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I’m proud to be an EGM subscriber! I’m sending Ubisoft, Sony, and Midway a very angry letter. Until they lift their “ban”, all of their products are banned from my house! Keep up the good work, Dan!
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Man Linton, I disagreed with everything you said. Which publisher do you work for?
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:51 am
So Linton,
Do you work for Ubisoft, Midway, or Sony Sports?
BTW, you’re probably working on a crap game regardless. Make it a good game and you won’t have to worry so much about the reviews.
Asshat.
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Yes, and because they gave a fighting game with a KART RACING MODE a bad review they should really be banned from reviewing all games.
on January 9th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Obviously it’s because EGM is extremely biased
on January 9th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Way to ignore what’s going on and change the subject. People will always make a personal choice about buying a game, and the opinions of others can inform that choice. If you think derogatory reviews are prevalent, good for you, that’s your opinion. The spread of information about products is something important to most consumers, and if companies think they can punish people who warn consumers about poor products, then our way of life is in some trouble. Freedom of information is important, and trying to bar a publication from reviewing your products, ostensibly cause they’re bad, is something most would agree is childish and potentially illegal.
on January 9th, 2008 at 2:50 am
How can they possibly ban any publication from reviewing their products?
Sure they may not provide screenshots, trailers, pre-release preview or review copies and other bias inducing stuff like money hats and little collectible ‘gifts’ but I don’t see how they can fully ban any publication from doing reviews of their products.
on January 9th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Wow… things are really taking a turn for the worst with reviews. I can’t believe that companies are doing this. I totally disagree with you, Linton, the game developers should not be able to influence reviewers. THAT IS WHY THEY REVIEW! To get a perspective that comes from someone other than the developers.
It’s all just going downhill… very sad.
on January 9th, 2008 at 3:07 am
“ubisoft says the egm can no longer review their games? wowwww.”
Wrong, said companies will merely not be sending product for review (temporarily I presume). EGM is still free to drop $50-60 of their own money to review a game. Previews, will however, obviously take a hit, but how significant are previews now given the speed of information?
on January 9th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Shill!
on January 9th, 2008 at 5:19 am
So Lint, which one of those companies do you work for?
on January 9th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Wow, Linton. Which one of those 3 do you work for? You’re obviously a tool for one of them.
If a game gets bad reviews, it’s the game companies own fault. They made a crap game. I want reviewers to be as harsh as possible, because it’s my money that’s on the line when I buy a game. Anybody who’s not a corporate stooge would agree.
on January 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am
LOL @ the post above.
Who are you? Some Ubisoft representative? You claim that we as customers miss out on ‘gems’ because of reviews? Don’t bullsh!t anyone you liar. By calling a game a ‘gem’ you imply it is a good game, not a sh!t one like Kane and Lynch or Assassins Creed which did not deserve their overly positive scores. Gertsmangate and now this. EGM can stand head and shoulders above the rest with Kotaku on their stance with not pandering to developers who try to buy a review or pressure them into overly positive reviews. Developers who are trying to make a game don’t deserve any sympathy when they get crap reviews, you make it sound like magazines and websites give games which are integral to their hobby a bad review for jokes. What a moron. Clearly you’re misguided fool who thinks that devs have a right to having a hand in my wallet for a crap game or cash-in when really they don’t. I buy games based on reviews, and not ONE review but a wide range of reviews.
on January 9th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Linton: These aren’t struggling little developers eking out a living through minor-league, left-field titles. These are the leaders of the business sector. Ubi was pissed off because Assassin’s Creed got a rough review. They were one of the only sites giving it the low marks it supposedly deserved, judging by the consumer backlash against that game.
Also, are you feeling sad for companies? Are you saying that customers should be happy that corporations are there to tell them what they should spend their money on and enjoy? Are you saying that the press is evil and black-hearted for giving their informed opinion on the same matter?
Yikes.
on January 9th, 2008 at 9:11 am
What an amazing coincidence… all three of those publishers make bad games!
on January 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
This warms my cockles, and is another reason why I regard EGM fairly highly. Shoe’s clearly a chap with a lot of integrity.
Off-topic, he’s a thoroughly down-to-earth bloke as well - I met him at E3 and played him at GHIII (which incidentally, he sucks at - sorry Shoe! :P)
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
…
bravo shoe.
maybe they will stop making such awful games.
(although im usually impressed with Ubisoft)
on January 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
If they dont want to work with you, tough for you. They’re aware that your publication has the potential to increase sales and obviously they dont care. Whining about it isnt going to solve anything. Your publication is nothing but a rag, not suitable for wiping after dropping a loaf.
“MOM!!!!!!! Sony, Ubisoft and Midway wont let me play with their games!!! Make them share!”
on January 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Screw reviews!!! Let’s just go back to the good ‘ole days when the only clue you had about if a game was good or not was looking at the cover art and reading the blurb on the back of the box. I say its high time we get to suffer from Buyers Remorse again! Remember the excitement of buying a new game and having no idea if the game you got is awesome or complete garbage . Yeah, those were the good ‘ole days…
If any of you are Pants-on-Head retarded… the word you’re searching for to describe the above block of text is …SARCASM…
on January 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
@ Hollywood:
My thoughts exactly, my head nearly exploded. Midway and ubisoft really should make such a decision like this at this point in the “console wars”. With Xbox 360 in its “golden age”, nintendo getting on track for some decent games, and well, guess there really isnt anything to say for the ps3(its there), i know a customer like myself looks forward to quality reviews so i can decide how i want to spend my 60 dollars, and despite egms reviews for assassins creed, i got the game and would have given it a 7-8 also, so 1 review isnt necessarily life or death for a game.
on January 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I used to work in PR and the statement we “won’t treat these products or companies any differently” is so far from true it turns my gut to read it.
- If you have a relationship with a magazine they treat you (read: the company) differently.
- If you don’t have a great relationship with a company they treat you (read: the company) differently.
- Journalists are like lemmings when it comes to articles and product reviews. They want the scoop, and they want to be a voice, but they often won’t be a voice that opposes the popular journalist opinion.
And no. I don’t work for any of these companies and never had. I don’t work in PR anymore because I enjoy internet marketing so much more.
on January 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
What’s the problem here?
Look at it from the business side of it. The publishers are only concerned about their profit margins, and positive PR for their games ties directly into this. Why should a company have a magazine preview one of their games or run a cover story for them if they are going to get bashed up and down by the editors.
EGM can still review the games when they are released to the public, they will just not get to go behind the scenes and take an early look. This is how capitalism works people, these publishers only have their profitability to worry about, and they do not care one way or another about EGM. This merely goes to show that EGM has some journalistic integrity while at the same time these publishers have good business sense. (Except for the Sony sports games division, I didn’t even know Sony was still putting out sports games, apparently they need all the publicity they can get.)
on January 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m also glad to see the pubs/devs take a stand. EGM has gone down the tubes in recent years (look at 1up if you need any further proof). Games journalism needs to be held to higher standards. I am all for objective reviews, and it does anger me to hear that good reviews can be bought.
The flip side is the sometimes good reviews MUST be bought. It is in these cases that some of the EGM/1up folk have really crossed the line of professionalism. Some of those guys write like high school flunkies or drunk frat boys and use their position to leverage developers. Also look at the top reviewed games of the past few years…they are almost all first person shooters! Time for a change.
on January 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hi there,
It’s good, and it’s not…
just as a disclosure I am working for a game company (and I met “Shoe” for one of my titles)…
While integrity is vital for press, we have to look at both sides of the fence.
This is not tolerable to have publishers dictating or threatening (be it through ad budget or blackballing) the journalists, but honestly, how many in the rank of the “gaming press” can be considered real “journalist”?
You wouldn’t see any bloke with no schooling, limited vocabulary and general lack of style being hired by a serious publication.
Problem is that the VG industry is still new, and the amount of cash generated by this new industry is a bit overwhelming, for the owning companies, as well as investors.
A bad review, before any sales numbers are published can damage the share value of a company (quick hint, look at Ubisoft, date of first average review of assassin’s creed and the company market value…). This is putting a huge stress on the normaly “clean” relationship publishers may have with the press and may lead to those extremes.
So, take this stress, and add it to the globaly very average level of game reviewers (there are some good one, Hsu being one in my books) and you have a perfect mix to have some un-healthy relationship.
As long as the press will not understand that they are no longer the hyped fans doing more editorial than researches (this now belongs to blog) the situation will go on.
Now if a game is average, and the reviewer is “competent” I do agree that’s the problem of the publisher/developer and public should be warned. But this implies a form of homogeneity in the ratings, this implies professionalism accross the board… and that is not the state of the gaming press as of today.
VG press as tremendous power, they can “harm” a billion corporation with a number in front of a “10″… Not just the game itself, the company as a whole.
Nowhere in the universe would major movies companies be harmed by the same thing. Shareholders know that you need the sales number to make a move. It is not the case of this industry. A bad review by a bad journalist can seriously harm many people.
This is not EGM problem, this is not Reader’s problem, but that’s a problem as a whole, in the ecosystem press/publisher creates.
Back to Assassin, I don’t have a problem with the note EGM gave… Problem I have is that throughout the board, there were some utterly polarized notes.
This to me indicates that the process of “reviewing” is mostly “editorial” (based on sensibility). That’s fine with me, however, you are entitled to dislike someone’s personality and decide not to talk to him because he pisses you off. It happens everyday.
Make the VG journalism something solid and serious, and then, publishiers will probably even go further as asking before hand what they think of the game…
Kudos to Hsu for saying it loud, but respect to the companies that decided that it was not beneficial for them to sustain a badly shaped relationship.
In the end, if there are no reviews of Ubi/Sony Sport etc.. in the mags, no more coverage, no more sales etc…
It is time for the VG press to sit down with publisher and discuss issues on both sides, survival of boths depends on it.
Tom.
on January 9th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
screw magazine reviews….get gamefly and decide for yourself…..stop being sheeple
on January 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Oh come on, what is this? Even though I don’t agree with Linton, doesn’t mean that it has to turn into a personal bash and that just because you didn’t like something, that it was complety and total crap. The world is a big place and just because everyone near you didn’t like it, doesn’t mean that a larger group of people don’t like it either. When it comes to games we have to keep an open mind and, no, companies shouldn’t influence how a review goes, and yes, it was Dan’s right to review it as he wished but the fact remains that you don’t have to pledge allegiance to someone opinion and always go as they say, for even they can be wrong some times. How you would say? Here’s a good example: most kid games get awful review and to most are considered crap but to most KIDS it is loved because it was made for them. Now who’s being biased?
on January 9th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
This is incredible. I haven’t had a subscription to EGM since 1999 and I am going to resubscribe TODAY. I’m tired of biased reviews on nearly every website these days. I’ve been reading video game review publications since the 1980’s and it’s less subjective now than ever!
on January 9th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
wow, I dont care if egm and sony sports beat eachother into the ground. I dont care about either of thier products. But I think its really funny how one person can have a different view and he get personaly insulted by everyone. I could just as easily say that all of you are on the EGM payroll. Companies dont like EGM because they are usualy negative, they dwell on whats wrong with a game rather than all aspects. I dont know about the whole “wrestle influence” argument, but it’s funny to see a negative magazine defended by nothing but negativity.
on January 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Wrong, said companies will merely not be sending product for review (temporarily I presume). EGM is still free to drop $50-60 of their own money to review a game.”
While the magazines are free to buy the games and write whatever they want about them, they cannot publish any images or video from the game without the publishers permission, so i doubt they will bother to review any of them.
on January 9th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Frankly, I’m with the naysayers on this one. I have to quote here.
“I could just as easily say that all of you are on the EGM payroll. Companies dont like EGM because they are usualy negative, they dwell on whats wrong with a game rather than all aspects. I dont know about the whole “wrestle influence” argument, but it’s funny to see a negative magazine defended by nothing but negativity.”
And frankly, I’m tired of American journalists and organizations pulling from the “home team,” sometimes blatantly. Please tell me you catch my drift. I haven’t bought an EGM for years, or gone to GameSpot either. I’m so used to seeing so much personal opinion and bias, mostly I go to the sites associated with the games I’m interested in to get info and videos. At least then I know I won’t get a video which is doctored.
on January 9th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I subscribe to EGM and as of late have been getting more and more annoyed at what seems to be them trying to claim to be better than others. If you read through the magazine they really just seem to be bitter towards specific companies (usually seems to coincide with a GameInformer exclusive) and it reflects in their review scores. Fair coverage my butt.
Just my observation…
on January 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I can but help see this as a legitimate indication that EGM is trying to judge games fairly. Or at least they’re willing to give out bad reviews when they think its warranted (and I think that may be the case here - I’m looking at you Assassin’s Creed). Can publishers pull advertising? Sure, and I imagine thats why giving bad reviews is such a tough thing. But I hope they can make the dollars and cents work after losing the advertising, because standing behind your staff and product should count for something. I’m pretty impressed.
on January 10th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Good on ‘ol Shoe and EGM for their “let it be known” moment. However, AREN’T GAME MAGAZINES SUPPOSED TO WRITE UNBIASED ARTICLES!?
Either way, now that we don’t have to worry about EGM being in a publishers financial pocket. We can address all of the shrinking content. I remember when EGM used to have at least 150pages in every issue. The only thing that has changed over there are less reviews, bizzare layouts, and giant graphics everywhere to hide the lack of actual words…
But then again, I could be wrong. Maybe I’m just bitter they moved away from sweet home Chicago. ;-)
on January 10th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Midway doesn’t exactly have a reputation for PR brilliance but Sony and Ubisoft? What are they smoking?
on January 10th, 2008 at 7:31 am
No one is forcing anyone to do anything - Companies do not HAVE to send games to magazines and magazines can still review games (they just can’t review it before it gets released). EGM is a widely read magazine, and it has a lot of influence. It will continue reviewing these games, it will just take a while longer.
However, it does reflect badly on Ubisoft, sony, ect. Sure, all game magazines have their faults and biases, but at the end of the day, a good game is still a good game and a bad game is still a bad game. You can pull advertising and deny access to a game, but you can’t stop all reviewers. And even if Sony, Ubisoft, Midway, manage to do that - well, we still have the internet don’t we? Of course, companies sometimes pay people to write positive things about it on the web, but the majority of people on the internet will give their honest opinion. In the end, people will still be able to review.
No matter what Midway does, it can’t make Hour of Victory look good. No matter what Ubisoft does, it can’t take away the flaws of Assassin’s Creed (which was great game, it just had some flaws, is that so hard to admit Ubisoft?)
on January 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
have we all already forgotten what happened with Gamespot and their firing of Jeff Gerstmann, their *chief* editor, because his reviews were unfavorable to one of Gamespot’s major advertisers?
this is the same thing. gaming journalism cannot thrive under such disgusting efforts by the game publishers to silence bad reviews.
on January 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
This is directed to “I Slap People”.
Yes, this is an opportunity for the magazine to show their integrity, which they did, but the actions of the Devs/Publishers proved something besides the fact that they have good business sense. IT PROVED THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE GAMERS. You hit the nail on the head when you said they only care about the bottom line, because that is the absolute truth. They pulled their support from EGM because they want to hide the truth about the quality of their games, because they are afraid it will affect their sales. But if they’d stop manufacturing crap, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bottom line is that these companies want to deceive us into buying their half-assed products so that they can make as much money as possible while putting in the least amount of work. They do not care about the consumer and making sure that we get the best gaming experience possible. All they want is our money. I personally think their fears are pretty much unfounded, though, because I haven’t really seen a negative review have a terrible affect on the revenue of the reviewed game. Unless it’s a Bomberman: Act Zero, or something equally crappy, a mediocre review is not death. Take Assasin’s Creed for example. It got a less-than-stellar score, but it still sold very well, at least in my area, and I happen to greatly enjoy that game. Conversely, games like Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil got great scores, and barely sold. It’s not the reviews that sell games, it’s the content, the quality. EGM is just their scapegoat for the crap that they made.
on January 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Keith K. What is with people like you? You think that EGM and Shoe are the childish ones in this situation? They are simply pointing out why the coverage of the games from those developers will be lacking. Midway, Sony, and Ubi Soft are the ones that took their ball and went home to mommy, because of some criticism from EGM.
I wish people would state exactly why EGM is such a rag when they say such things.
on January 11th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Games are like movies, when someone doesn’t want their product reviewed until the last minute or not at all, it usually means the product is not that good and the maker has no faith in it.
on January 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am
This is good. I hope more companies follow. EGM is plain shit. Whoever reads their crap has a history of retardation. I wouldn’t be surprised if more companies ban EGM. LOL to EGM. GG.
on January 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I’ve been thinking about this for a few days. I think Shoe is full of crap. Rather than name names when pointing out the very bad practice of connecting reviews to ad revenue, he only starts to say something when it affects the games that may be coming in because they don’t like the review scores. I have no problem with him calling these publishers out, but it smacks of juvenile whining about a kid not getting what they want rather than an important figure in the industry standing up for what is right.
on May 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
some of those publishers make bad games!