Game Journalism Gets a “Shoe” to the Head
When Dan Hsu led off the latest editorial in Electronic Gaming Monthly (#199, January 2006) with “my industry pisses me off,” I knew it was going to be interesting. Sure enough, in the following paragraphs, Dan Hsu paints a picture of widespread ethical misconduct that he says has infected parts of the video game journalism industry. Without naming any names, Hsu’s editorial mentions three seperate publications — two magazines and one Web site — that he has heard are willing to exchange advertising considerations for editorial considerations.
After finishing the short editorial, it seemed pretty clear that these serious accusations required further elaboration. And that’s just what Hsu gives after the jump.
In an interview with this reporter and NintendoNow’s David Gornoski, Hsu said he first became suspicious of other magazine’s practices when he noticed some odd games appearing on a specific magazine’s cover. “They’re not high-profile games, they’re not sleeper hits, they’re not marketable,” Hsu said. “They’re games no sane editor or publisher would ever put on their covers.”
Hsu says his suspicions led him to contact a public relations representative from “a major game publisher… as big as they get,” who confirmed that the suspicious magazine’s covers could indeed be “bought” with ad space. Hsu also heard stories of another magazine and game publisher that arranged an ads-for-covers deal “on the golf course” with no editorial involvement (Hsu said he heard the game company even has a name for the practice, “editorial marketing”). Another PR person from a small publisher told Hsu that a major gaming Web site told them flat out “if we want coverage, we need to buy ads.”
Hsu said he has experience with this type of pressure from game companies himself. “Game companies generally know they can’t boss us around or try to influence our scores, but that doesn’t stop some of them from trying, “Hsu said. “Some companies actually feel they have the right to look over your story before it goes to print! Do you know why? Because other magazines have given them that leeway.”
In our interview, Hsu refused to go public with the names of the magazines and publishers mentioned in his editorial. He did note that the outlets in his examples did not include IGN and Game Informer, “who were often accused by some readers.” Hsu defended his silence by saying that naming the outlets would look petty. “While I want to call them out because I want the industry to shape up, I don’t want to get into petty fights. I feel like we’re above that.” Hsu also worried that an investigative piece looking at these accusations would not be a good fit for an entertainment magazine like EGM.
So why do the editorial at all? “I had a selfish reason for doing that editorial,” Hsu said. “I’m hoping that, with this added pressure for everyone to do the right thing…and for the press to start acting like press…that it’ll make it better for *all* of us across the board… If all of my competitors would not allow game companies to read their copy before going to print … it’d make my life a lot easier.”
How will these changes come about? “The consumers have to rise up and demand better from the press,” Hsu says. “I’m not sure how they can do this if they themselves are not sure who’s doing the right things, and who’s not… but I hope the industry watchdogs … can help us clean things up, so we’re all get the proper respect that we deserve, as an industry as a whole.”
As an industry watchdog, I’m as troubled by Hsu’s accusations as his reluctance to publicly name the outlets he’s accusing. Nonetheless, this site will do its best to investigate such claims and report back with its findings once they can be confirmed or refuted.
If you have any information that you think might be helpful in such an investigation, please let me know. Your identity will be kept in the strictest confidence, if requested, and your information will be given its due consideration.
on December 16th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Will sell ad space for food…
on December 16th, 2005 at 4:23 am
“After the jump” now tops the list of “Most Annoying Expressions I’ve Ever Encountered”.
on December 16th, 2005 at 4:29 am
Wow, it’s like watching zookeepers discover that lions bite.
Also, I like this bit: “While I want to call them out because I want the industry to shape up, I don’t want to get into petty fights. I feel like we’re above that.” And yet that’s precisely what he /has/ done. Particularly by pointing out that he thinks IGN and Game Informer don’t do it. That’s almost worse, in fact, because nobody’s directly accused but everyone else is implicated. Well done, “Shoe”.
on December 16th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
“‘After the jump’ now tops the list of ‘Most Annoying Expressions I’ve Ever Encountered.’”
It’s not that annoying, and I’ll tell you why after the jump…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, actually, I see your point. Any better ideas?
Also, um, any serious discussion of the topics Shoe raised?
on December 16th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
I think it’s fairly obvious one of the magazines he’s referring to is Play. If you look at just about every cover it’s of some relatively random or obscure game that would normally have no business on a game cover. Usually the cover games are trumped up and scored fairly well as well.
I suppose one could argue that Play is just more niche, but given it’s size (it’s pretty thin) and the amount of artwork and photos for any cover story (there is usually a lot, which could only come from the publisher), I had no doubt they’re taking some money to offset the cost of the mag (which is larger than most and printed on pretty nice paper, not a cheap mag to make). I can’t imagine the ads or the circulation numbers make up for all the costs on thier own.
Not saying Play is guilty here, but they certainly do fit the bill.
on December 16th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Good luck finding the names. I think it’s a worthy endeavor. Though for those who haven’t read Shoe’s editorial, you can do so here: http://egmshoe.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583&publicUserId=5379799
on December 16th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I can honestly say after having worked for a both a large and medium sized network in an editorial and PR capacity that this is not an uncommon practice. I have been pressured by management of the site to not give a title coverage because they would not buy advertising and the reverse has also happened. Pressure from the publishers to change a review to meet a certain score or they will pull their advertising money is not something that happens every day, but it does often enough that I am surprised it took this long for someone to be very public about it.
on December 16th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
The way he did it was petty. Either shit or get off the pot. Name names or don’t bring it up. People think that EGM is guilty of the practice, so this could be seen as a “shift the blame” tactic. The only way this will get better is if specific examples are exposed.
btw - if any publishers are reading this… I’m cheap… ;)
on December 16th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Halo… Dungeon Siege… PGR….. Kameo… Tycoon games… Jade Empire… Conker…. Blinx…. Forza….
Gee I wonder what company makes average games that get an amazing amount of coverage and undeservedly high reviews….
*cough* microsoft *cough cough*
on December 16th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
That’s an interesting issue as well. Just because your opinion of those titles doesn’t match up to the amount of coverage they get, doesn’t mean there’s foul play afoot. And yeah, all those great scores and GOTY awards Blinx snatched up just reeks of corruption. :)
Seriously though, I think Shoe could have just come out and given us the names. It’s like telling all your party guests that something in the room is slowly killing them and refusing to say what it is or how they can get out. Now we know the problem’s there - should we just hold our breath and hope it goes away?
on December 16th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
For the full roundtable, stay tuned to NintendoNow.com. We’ll have the full transcript up soon.
Listen, Hsu did the right thing. He’s got guts breaking ranks with the media elites to tell it like it is. E-mpire and VGMWatch’s job is to keep the media accountable. It’s not EGM’s job. Rest assured, we will handle this disgusting prostitution of the game media.
on December 16th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
If it wasn’t his job then why do it at all? It’s fairly common knowledge that coverage & game scores have been tied to many an advertising dollar. He’s not going to get the industry to better itself with a half-assed accusation that most of us are already familiar wth. It shouldn’t take an editorial for somebody to do an investigative piece exposing this practice. Only when the ugly examples are exposed (publisher XXX paid for score XXX in XXX publication) will this sort of thing reach the point where the public would even think of having any sort of real outcry.
on December 17th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Well, am I the only one who noticed that the month previous to the issuing of this editorial, two of Future Networks’ magazines, Playstation Magazine and Official XBox Magazine, both had King Kong as the lead cover story and review?
I’m not saying Future Networks is the company to look at, but I can easily see the King Kong movie and game being pushed hard on them. The amount of coverage for a movie tie-in, when many other big games were being released and the 360 release looming, seemed shocking to me at the time.
Thoughts?
on December 17th, 2005 at 3:34 am
I honestly don’t think this is as big a problem as everyone thinks.
Can you honestly say there’s been a slew of magazine covers for “undeserving” games recently? Or ever for that matter?
Yes, Play covers some weird ones. But a lot of it can be waved away with reasonable explanations.
Maximo 2 on the cover? Oh, right, Dave Halverson is a huge Ghosts ‘n Goblins fan.
Magna Carta on the cover? Oh right, Play does that Girls of Gaming mini-mag. Synergy is it?
The Suffering? The Suffering was just fun in a sick way man.
Dragon Quest VIII? That’s not ad dollars, that’s an anime centered publication covering the biggest anime based game ever.
Similar lists could be started about other mags I’m sure. Any EIC with a quirky sense of a good game can make things look weird to the GTA/Halo/Zelda crowd, but that doesn’t always mean something fishy is going down.
on December 17th, 2005 at 3:42 am
Thoughts on Kong coverage? Maybe there was money, and maybe it actually was newsworthy enough.
People are interested in big movie tie-in games, after all. They are mass market products based on what are expected to be blockbuster movies, so there is interest amongst a general audience. Making it cover story and lead review is a means of appealing to that audience.
And the developers of such games tend to make amazing promises that look good in print. Then there is the interest afterwards as to whether the games even approach the hype. People who don’t even want the game may want to see if it is a trainwreck.
It is similar to the comment above that wanted to question Halo, Dungeon Siege, and Jade Empire. Whether or not you like Halo, a lot of people adore it. Whether or not you like Dungeon Siege, it was a somewhat big deal in PC gaming during its time. Whether or not you like Jade Empire, it was publically ambitious and did manage to make its own fans.
on December 17th, 2005 at 10:17 am
I don’t know of a single magazine that could be considered independent in this way - this is why magazine companies have a tendency to merge. A real focus should be put on supporting the companies that don’t promote new games on their covers, so at least the advertising culture could be switched around a bit and pressure put on companies to extend shelf lives, etc, and to diversify the means by which advertising influences game magazines. For example, as it stands, every page given to a Q+A with a designer who doesn’t have a new game out costs the magazine money.
I think we should assume that most everything you read that increases the chance you will buy a particular thing is not there by accident.
on December 17th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Baines does bring up good points about Kong being a pretty high-profile game, but I’m still surprised at OXM not covering the impending 360 launch. Then again, maybe there wasn’t any news on the 360. Wouldn’t have shocked me.
on December 17th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I truly think one of the magazines that Shoe is talking about GamePro.
Observe their cover stories from the past few years:
http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/toc/index.shtml
Hitman Contracts?
3 different DBZ games?
Huh?
on December 17th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
We can run around in ceicles trying to figure it out. Until specific examples are exposed it’s pointless.
on December 17th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
“We can run around in circles trying to figure it out. Until specific examples are exposed it’s pointless.”
Then Shoe shouldn’t have said anything. I think we can all agree, it’s as simple as that.
If he was so concerned about his whistleblowers losing their jobs then he should have said “If you get canned you can come work for EGM.”
He dropped the ball and he needs to be told that.
on December 17th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Follow the money. *drag* *puff*
on December 17th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Look, it’s not Hsu’s job to actually investigate fellow media outlets. That’s E-mpire’s job. EGM is consumer-only. We are consumer/trade. Rest assured, E-mpire will report any findings we come across as we continue looking into media corruption issues.
on December 17th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
No, it’s not EGM’s or Hsu’s job. He shouldnt’ have brought it up, and it shouldn’t have taken this half assed editorial “no name calling” to get an investigation started. You can’t act as if this hasn’t been going on for years and are only finding out that this is *shock* happening.
on December 17th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Daniel: While you may have known this has been going on for years, I wouldn’t say it’s exactly public knowledge. Most of the reactions I have gotten (including a few from mainstream press) were positive, thanking me for bringing this up. Others have said that they weren’t surprised, but they didn’t *know* this was going on. From my perspective, relatively few people could actually say, “Yes, this is absolutely going on.”
I absolutely understand why people are upset that I didn’t name names. But I don’t really understand why some people would rather that I just stayed quiet about this whole thing…to sweep it under the rug, so to speak.
on December 17th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Shue should realise by actually saying this, all he’s actually done is give readers another reason to suspect all games journalism outlets.
In fact, after they’ve read all the headlines links to this “whistle-blowing” post, they won’t even remember which site originated the editorial. So no-one will remember it was 1-up which separated themselves from the crowd, and they’ll be tarred with the same corrupt goo they were lobbing around.
Hell - the brit mags are still getting stick from Driv3rgate, where a couple of magazines gave the game a high score and some accusations of corruption were levelled at *a couple of magazines specifically*. Now that is brought up in reference to *all* magazines, even the ones who openly slagged the piece of shit game.
And who can blame them not to believe you? If corruption is that endemic, surely a magazine openly talking about corruption could just be a ruse too.
So, basically, just dumb. Thanks a lot for making my job even harder, Shue.
KG
on December 17th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
“Shoe”.
KG
on December 17th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
Thanks for making MY job harder, Kieron. Now I’ve got people sending me writing samples reviewing what they had for breakfast.
http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2005/03/new-games-journalism-our-seven-point.html
on December 17th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
I commend Hsu’s editorial. What he’s done is pave the way more open public discourse on what has supposedly been happening throughout the ages of game magazines across the board, and in an era where all the major publishers are trying to appeal to wider and wider audiences (especially the non-gamer crowd) then it’s more important than ever. He’s also putting the pressure on the “watchdog” groups to come up with some real solid answers.
Mr. Gillen, are the magazines to blame that gamers are such a seemingly distrusting bunch, or is the industry at larger to blame for cultivating their mindset via their lowest-common-denominator coverage? I’m not saying game rags are using mind control devices to place thoughts in the heads of their readers, just that it seems typical game mags try very hard to appeal to the most immature minded people.
The industry is growing, and it needs to start growing up as well. Part of growing up is learning when to check yourself and take responsibility for your actions. All these little internet “scandals” are the growing pains. It’s not Hsu’s place to name names because he’s too invested in the subject, as are his sources and colleagues. That’s why it’s important to bring attention to matters like these so independant watchdog groups can do the dirty work of investigating. It’s nothing new, it’s been a part of “real” journalism for a long time now.
I hope these investigations yeild concrete results in the form of names and companies. We need to start calling people out on this stuff, and Hsu is just doing his part in the grand scheme of things.
Just my two cents.
on December 18th, 2005 at 6:10 am
“You supply the pictures I’ll supply the war!” Nough said, “its all about the Benjamins!” Its a shame too, because “Everybody has a price!” even low circulation game magazines.
on December 18th, 2005 at 6:45 am
Shoe: “I absolutely understand why people are upset that I didn’t name names. But I don’t really understand why some people would rather that I just stayed quiet about this whole thing…to sweep it under the rug, so to speak.”
Because if you’re going to do it, do it right. Don’t stand up and say “I know some people are doing bad things and I know who they are, but I can’t tell you who they are.” And we ask “Why?” And then you reply “Just because.”
That’s the wrong way to go about it because, as others have said, it taints all of us now.
Mr. Mechanical: “I hope these investigations yeild concrete results in the form of names and companies. We need to start calling people out on this stuff, and Hsu is just doing his part in the grand scheme of things.”
But according to Shoe, we don’t need investigations. He CAN name names (and companies) and those names supposedly have proof that bad dealings are going on (and if there’s no proof this is all a big to-do about nothing).
Daniel said it best near the beginning (but it bears repeating): Shit, or get off the pot.
There are no other options.
on December 18th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Shoe’s credibility is undermined by his reluctance to name names. While it may seem somewhat noble and conform to the playground ideals of tattle-taleism, ultimately it reveals that he does not have enough concrete proof to call someone out.
But then again, is it really Shoe’s place to call them out? Not at all — not even in the shaky way he did. As EIC the objective of his column is to serve as the voice of his publication. His publication covers the game industry, therefore so should his column.
There are issues on both sides of the fence here. Any type of consumer journalism makes a rhetorical argument to the reader. The writer provides facts and opinions of those facts in order to give the reader an idea of what the product is like. The one necessary condition in this relationship is the idea that beyond perhaps getting the product for free, the reviewer’s impression of the product is not tainted by outside influences.
There is no moral ambiguity in this situation: the publication should not be influenced by game companies. If it is, it’s lying. And nobody likes a liar.
Ultimately, this story serves as a reason for VGMWatch to be here.
on December 19th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
As Kieron says, by not naming names he’s indicted everyone. It’s bad journalism, bush league stuff, particularly from his bully pulpit. “It’s just an editorial” isn’t a defense; the editorial from the head of any magazine is a statement of policy, and one of the most serious and important pieces in any issue. (Which makes it agonizing to write each month.)
If you have this kind of information, what anyone can do is cooperate with an investigative journalist for some other, non-competing publication. Contact the New York Times, or Salon.com, or whomever would think this is a big deal. There are plenty of media watchdogs out there, or parties interesting in exposing corruption. But it’s very simple: Time typically doesn’t investigate Newsweek, or vice versa; they only write about issues with each other when a third-party uncovers something.
I once wrote an editorial that named names, specifically people who were reviewing betas. I regretted doing the piece immediately, because it was self-serving and made me look petty. I can’t be the watchdog of my competitors because I have zero credibility when it comes to their business.
on December 19th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
I’m going to have to start work on my “At least 75% of games journalists are rapists. Now, I have proof, but I’m not going to name names. Whatever you do, don’t let your daughters anywhere near ‘em, just to be sure” editorial to see if it’ll help people get the bloody problem here.
Gahk!
Finn: ” Demian Linn”. Aw, diddums. That delete key of yours must be so tired.
I may be in a bad mood.
KG
on December 19th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
For the curious, Shoe has updated his blog and said GamePro is not one of the outlets either.
So IGN, Game Informer and GamePro are in the clear.
Maybe if he eliminates enough suspects we’ll figure it out.
on December 19th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
By adding more to the “not it” list, it just looks worse. It’ll be like those childhood games where you wait for the responder to say “I’m not telling” to one of your guesses, because then you’ll know that’s the one.
I understand what Dan is trying to do. Acknowledging that there may be corruption in the magazine business or that there is some editorial/marketing bleeding over the supposed wall between them is certainly different from what we readers are generally assured.
But to mention specific anecdotes and then specifically absolve two or three publications? Now if he refuses to absolve anyone, it will look very much like an accusation.
on December 19th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Hsu - you said “But I don’t really understand why some people would rather that I just stayed quiet about this whole thing…to sweep it under the rug, so to speak.”
I actually would rather you named names, or given the list of names to a place such as VGMWatch.
I wonder if my website will show up on the “exonerated” list at some point.
Either do it or don’t. If you wanted to actually do something about this, the DO SOMETHING!!
on December 19th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Naming only a few “innocents” is certainly opening a can of worms.
For one thing, we don’t actually know the named companies are really innocent of the practice. We just know that Hsu says they aren’t the companies that he spoke of, but the whole limited name release makes it look like they are definately clear.
For another, what happens if someone in private goes up to Hsu with evidence that shows one of his “cleared” groups is actually dirty? Does he keep quiet? Does he throw the question mark upon all of them by saying one of them is guilty? Does he quietly remove a name and hope no one notices or questions why?
Third, how is he picking which groups to name as clear? Is he selectively picking publications where close friends work, for example? That would be a questionable practice in itself, if he is hand-picking who he is exonerating and leaving others out in the open. Are they somehow being “cleared” by some secret investigation of unknown quality?
Fourth, has he really helped any kind of investigation by saying to the industry “I know some of you have been bad. Some people might think about investigating you, so you might want to change for a few months until this blows over. Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone the names of the magazines I know are guilty.” Is this an attempt to clean up the industry? Is it a smokescreen? And the cynical might ask whether it is a cheap trick to dirty the name of the bulk of Hsu’s competition.
Fifth, it is a case where there really might not be much provable info, and not naming the names is a means of legal protection for Hsu and his magazine?
on December 20th, 2005 at 12:33 am
I know that the selling the cover as ad space goes on because one of the mags I get, Electronic Gaming Monthly, does it very often. The ad for the game is kind of glued on the actual cover with a gummy, removable glue, so there is an actual cover that doesn’t always have the game in the ad on it. Still the first thing you see when you pick the mag up is the ad on the front so it’s just the same as a cover. I bet that ad is pretty expensive. Personally, I’d rather game makers spent less money on ads and more on making better games. There’s almost too much exposiure for many games these days what with the internet, tv commercials, ads in mags, tie ins with movie DVD’s etc. I bet they could make some real improvements to their games with all the money they spend on these ads. A really great game sells itself through word of mouth and video store rentals without all the media hype. It hurts the credibility of the game reviewers if there is even a rumour going around that they got something from the game makers for reviewing their games. Kind of hard to be objective when you’ve been bought off.
on December 20th, 2005 at 12:52 am
“I actually would rather you named names, or given the list of names to a place such as VGMWatch.”
With all due respect to Kyle, he writes for a number of game publications, which negatively lowers his credibility as a media watcher. To use one example, any criticisms of news websites has to be taken with a grain of salt as he’s a regular contributor at NextGen. The only entity that could seriously and credibly evaluate the state of game journalism is a third party outside the game industry.
“A really great game sells itself through word of mouth and video store rentals without all the media hype.”
Hah, you crazy kids.
on December 20th, 2005 at 11:52 am
“a place such as”
my point isn’t that Kyle should be doing the investigating, but I wouldn’t mind if he did. My point is that Hsu’s half-asses partial accusations make the whole issue murkier than necessary and if he was going to do it, then do it, or pass the information on to somebody who would.
on December 21st, 2005 at 5:56 am
Ah, boys, this has been going on forever. Why mention it now?
The rule is simple: Don’t ever do it and you’ll be rewarded by your readers.
Others may sell out editorial space — so what? Readers will notice. They may not suspect deals, but will surely lose trust in a mag that places a bad or overhyped game on the cover or gives absurd verdicts.
on December 22nd, 2005 at 4:46 pm
I don’t think that enough of you realize the legal issues that shoe and EGM would be sifting through right now had he named names. Even if you know that this stuff is going on you can still be slapped with some serious lawsuits aimed at shutting you up. Shoe saved his own ass(and pocket book)by keeping the names quite.
on December 22nd, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Then why bother? Why not just hand the info to somebody that CAN do something about it?
on December 22nd, 2005 at 8:33 pm
“I don’t think that enough of you realize the legal issues that shoe and EGM would be sifting through right now had he named names. Even if you know that this stuff is going on you can still be slapped with some serious lawsuits aimed at shutting you up. Shoe saved his own ass(and pocket book)by keeping the names quite.”
Proof trumps everything. And by not naming names it proves he doesn’t have any.
on December 22nd, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Ok, I just discovered this bruhaha today and I have to say as a fellow journalist and critic, I get so tired of large organizations getting on their high horse and criticizing other people’s practices, whether it’s the idea of going on press junkets (which I’ve only been on two in 8 years) or selling covers. My problem with Shoe’s argument is a) he doesn’t name names, b) his argument is based on “speculation” not really facts.
So, is Shoe saying that any magazine that dares to vear off course and gasp, decide to cover something that HE doesn’t feel is “newsworthy” is immediately suspect? That just because 10 different game magazines will feature the X-Box 360 or MGS 4 on it’s cover (during the same month!!!) that the one that doesn’t MUST be selling their covers?
I find the idea that company’s like Ziff Davis, Future Networks, etc… that own so many different gaming publications more SUSPECT than the little independent magazine that tries to do something DIFFERENT with their cover. How many times has ZD or FN’s game magazines featured the same covers?
If you are going to throw stones, make sure your own house is above reproach. How often does your magazine feature full page - sometimes 2 or double sided page ads, or posters that promote the game that’s on YOUR cover? How do we as readers know that you guys don’t, in a “roundabout” way, sell your “covers?” Exactly how many covers did you guys run on GTA, Enter The Matrix, Driver, Soul Calibur???
In order to completely seperate yourselves from the pack and be beyond reproach is to ban any advertisement that feature Cover Games. At the very least don’t allow ads to run in the same issue the product gets a full cover spread.
I love EGM, and I think you are a pretty cool guy, but you should name the names or shut up. Or at the very least give a clear reason why you believe a cover is “suspect” beyond the fact that you may simply disagree with another editor’s choice. Because at the end of the day your article comes across as petty, that you saw a cover you didn’t like and thought was out of the “mainstream” and immediately assumed it was bought and paid for.
Now because of your open letter, a lot of gamers are going to assume the same thing that, “hmmmm….that’s strange, these 5 publications are featuring Zelda, MGS4 or the XBox 360 launch, and this other magazine has 50 Cent’s Bullet Proof. Something has to be wrong here!”
on December 23rd, 2005 at 3:27 am
I just have to chime in on this whole debate.
I first started reporting on the videogame industry in 2001 and I was SHOCKED at the level of intimicy between game journalists and game makers.
In all newspapers and magazines covering any topic these days there’s an alarming level of mixing advertising desires and editorial content - but except for travel writing, which is notoriously corrupt - I’d never experienced anything like what I’ve witnessed in this industry.
What I find must curious is that most of the reporters I’ve met who cover games don’t even think twice about accepting swag or having their trips paid for. It’s like they don’t realize you’re not really supposed to accept gifts from the people you’re writing about.
I’m glad to see this subject attracting so much attention - it’s important for all journalists to think about - and I do think for gaming coverage to move to the next level this has to looked at.
on December 23rd, 2005 at 7:54 am
I am almost willing to bet that it was PSM with the Warriors cover a month or so ago. I get Play, Playstation, EGM, and PSM and that was the one that stuck out the most in my mind.
on December 23rd, 2005 at 11:05 am
“I’d never experienced anything like what I’ve witnessed in this industry.”
You apparently never worked in the film and music industry, which has been about gifts, swag, and “press junkets” since before videogames existed.
This is entertainment reporting, not covering the White House. While I personally follow a fairly strict code of ethics similar to what you’d find in other forms of reporting, I don’t think it’s a particularly big deal that others don’t.
Ethical issues aren’t what’s keeping videogame journalism from moving on to any next level. Crappy writing and reporting is doing that on its own, and it doesn’t need any help from the game companies.
on December 23rd, 2005 at 6:12 pm
I think Shoe’s “editorial” is one of the most self-serving and extremely presumptuous rants I’ve read in a good long while. He alternately blasts *unnamed* competitors while elevating his own publication. Gee, how original. It’s not like there could be some ulterior motive apart from cleaning up the industry.
EGM and Ziff-Davis have enough at stake for me or anyone to question their integrity as well. I don’t think inspiring a sort of witch hunt attempting to root out unnamed co-conspirators is the most productive way to *fix* video game coverage. It’s right to question an industry one is part of. It’s right to challenge the media industry to get better. Credibility and reader faith are essential. But using the “he said, she said” approach is wishy-washy at best. We’re supposed to take Shoe at *his* word?? Basically all he’s saying is “Someone else is dirty but we here at EGM remain untarnished and unblemished by corporate greed. Aren’t we special?” Please.
I’m not a journalist, I’m a reader -and a gamer. I read several publications online and in print. I’ve been very skeptical for many years as to just how reliable and trustworthy most are. Ad revenue and the demand for it has increased exponentially over the years. As this has happened I’ve noted a gradual shift as publishers have moved from its’ readership and content as priority to ad-heavy, sponsor dictated content. Do you in the media have any idea how generic and cookie-cutter most of you come off to readers? At least some readers, like me. The industry in general seems as if it’s becoming more and more constrained by it’s own limitations and those set forth by sponsors. So it makes sense some -in order to get a “jump” on the competition- might ask for or offer more incentives with game publishers. Is it right? Nope. Expected? Yep. Accepted? Probably more than most would like to admit.
Like I said before; I think it’s great for industry vets/professionals to speak up on misgivings and challenge themselves and each other to improve. Nintendo, Sony and MS(and others) have done so openly in the past -but they named names in questioning certain practices by their competitors which they deemed “unfair”. Many gamers see through the spin. We expect the big 3 to take a jab or two at the others. When one editor of a gaming publication questions the integrity of another with unsubstantiated(outside of his own word) fact and proof many readers will see through that as well. It comes off to me as taking the low road and only exasserbates a problem and leads to a feeding frenzy for sharks who love controversy. Don’t just point fingers - offer solutions then BE *part* of the solution.
Probably the only real thing Shoe accomplished with his rant was gaining a lot of attention -not only for himself and EGM(along with 1UP), but for the industry in general. No matter the motive I guess the ensuing coverage and notoriety can be a good thing. Although, I’m not sure how beneficial this whole controversy will be for gamers.
Anyway, “Keep up the bad work.” :p
on December 23rd, 2005 at 11:21 pm
I think many of you have misunderstood. He wrote the editorial to give the practice attention. He didn’t name names to protect his company and his sources. It would be easy to figure out his sources if he stated the names, and those sources would be fired from their jobs.
I can understand where many of you are coming from, but many of you are seeing only one side if it (and I admit even I do not know the whole picture). He’s saying that EVERYONE should be it. He’s saying that as far as he knows, none of that goes on at his company, but that it is happening, and nobody’s immune from the pressure.
Naming names would be a huge problem; defamation lawsuits would cost the company huge amounts, even if won. And in law, the truth does not always win out, even though it should.
I agree that most gaming journalists and magazines seem cookie-cutter to me, as well; I take all reviews with a grain of salt. The problem raised here is not unusual choices or scores; it’s buying or influencing those published opinions through money, something that is unethical. Recently a huge scandal erupted in my hometown over the gift of two tickets to a hockey game to the chief of police from the leading competitor for the contract to provide the city with photo radar equipment; the chief took the tickets, and because that company won, although there may have been no influence, the publick backlash was enormous.
It’s that kind of thing that he’s talking about; the corruption in the industry, which is not present in all publications, but seems to be happening in some which ruins it for all.
EGM and himself could have had some serious backlash from his editorial, and in some ways did; the important thing is he raised the issue to a broader degree so that it could be investigated.
on December 24th, 2005 at 2:10 am
Chris, I certainly commend anyone for speaking their mind on important issues no matter how volatile. I don’t have a problem with Shoe or EGM. I take exception with the manner in which it was done. Not naming names is fine. But he still managed(whether by design or not) to point fingers in the general direction of a site or two and a mag by *naming* who was NOT implicated. D’uh!? If you’re not going to name names, don’t name ANY. Not only defeats the purpose but one or two ‘innocents’ might get caught in the cross-fire. I whole-heartedly would have applauded Shoe had he remained more objective instead of casting aspersions. A mere call to arms detailing his concerns would have sufficed.
Shoe said “it was an editorial, not a hard-hitting, whistle-blowing news story. Should it have been a hard-hitting, whistle-blowing news story?” He was blowing a whistle, just not naming names -at least not directly.. Maybe we’re arguing semantics but Shoe seems to be contradicting himself. Hence my diatribe earlier. :p
The issue Shoe brought up is important and a valid gripe. I personally believe the issue is more widespread than Shoe seems to think, or wants to believe. I just think he could have used more class and discretion in bringing it up. Think about it; how many EIC editorials from different publications have questioned (to put it extremely lightly) their competitors tactics/methods/practices while touting their own mag? I also think there’s some of that evident in Shoe’s “editorial”. I certainly do take it with a grain of salt.
on December 24th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Notice how GamePro published a review for DoA4, a cover story of their’s, even though at the time of their writing the story, the game was not available to review, as it was still in constant development.
Why review an early copy of the game, that even Itagaki has said is not ready at all, which has led him and his team to delay the game.
The only recently allowed people to play the actual game at two gaming outlets in Japan on kiosks.
on December 27th, 2005 at 1:58 am
“I think Shoe’s “editorial” is one of the most self-serving and extremely presumptuous rants I’ve read in a good long while. He alternately blasts *unnamed* competitors while elevating his own publication. Gee, how original. It’s not like there could be some ulterior motive apart from cleaning up the industry.”
I think the person who wrote that probably put it best. It’s completely gutless for Shoe to throw out accusations like that, basically damning the entire field of video game journalism, without naming names. The way it has been handled makes it seem like EGM is just as likely to be an offender as any of the unnamed mags that he would disparage.
I don’t doubt that the accusations are true and that some magazines are involved in this, but if you really wanted to do something about it, you would name names. The whole argument of, “We’re an entertainment magazine, not a trade publication, so it’s not our place to write about this subject” is a bunch of transparent BS because by that logic you wouldn’t have written the editorial in the first place.
on December 27th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Also, this was on Dan Hsu’s web site:
“It has come out through various conversations (public or otherwise) that, in my editorial, I am not referring to Game Informer, IGN, GamePro, GameSpy, or Play Magazine. I can’t personally vouch for any of those organizations, mind you. But they aren’t the ones I was specifically talking about in this editorial.”
At some point, enough publications are mentioned that it leads one to believe that certain other publications which have not been “exonerated” are the culprits. The only major players not mentioned above in the magazine field are the Future USA magazines.
Future USA has gone to hell ever since it became Future USA and ceased being Imagine Media, but it would still be extremely disappointing if they’re engaging in this kind of business.
Also, even if they’re not doing ads-for-coverage deals, does anyone else think it’s a huge conflict of interest that GameSpy provides the online gaming technology for many console and PC games? When I pick up a new game and I see the GameSpy logo on the back of the box next to the logos of the publisher and developer, how is that supposed to inspire anything but a sense of distrust in GameSpy’s review of that particular game? I don’t have any knowledge of GameSpy letting this affect their review process, but it’s certainly a huge conflict of interest.
on January 3rd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
I don’t know if this was brought up before, but Shoe didn’t name “innocents”, all he said that the organizations that he knew about were NOT those companies. those companies may be involved in foul play but who knows? Shoe was told by his contacts who, if the companies were named, would be fired. Also, remember this is: this was an editorial which means that Shoe is saying he believes something is wrong with the videogame news industry, and he gave his sources that tell him that, but for reasons, personal or otherwise, opted not to tell what companies EXACTLY are doing these “under the table” deals. I believe that Shoe standing by what he believes and how he should handle it is very admirable. Thank you, Shoe for showing your concern for the quality of videogame media.
on January 3rd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
“I don’t know if this was brought up before, but Shoe didn’t name “innocents”, all he said that the organizations that he knew about were NOT those companies. those companies may be involved in foul play but who knows?”
Small distinction in my mind. So he’s saying that he doesn’t know they are guilty. I am assuming that most readers will either say there is a presumption of innocence for those parties and want to dig out who the real culprits are or they will just condemn the whole lot. Neither one is a huge step forward.
I don’t think anyone doubts Hsu’s sincerity or motivation. But saying “Somebody told me that…” without pointing to examples for readers to examine is a dead end for me. It’s not much of a crusade if you can’t point me to the heathen I’m supposed to slay.
on January 4th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
What Dan Hsu wrote and how he wrote it was exactly the right thing to do. If editors of other magazines stood up and said, “You know what readers? Scrutinize us. Watch us. Question us. Because we too don’t like what is happening in this media industry either.” That would be the proper response for them. If they feel maligned maybe that is guilt, if they feel not guilt because they are innocent then they should support Shu with their own editorials. I don’t care who is guilty of innocent parties are because as an intelligent reader its my job, as a fan of gaming, to “watch” the watch-men. If you care about gaming then you should care enough to be a discriminating reader who questions most of what you read against your own scale of truth. GOOD JOB HSU!
on January 5th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
I don’t think it’s any secret that Future is high on the suspect list. I’m thinking especially of PC Gamer, perhaps the most ethically-challenged computer games mag there is.
That said, I think Hsu’s refusal to name names wrecks the whole point of his protest. This is exactly the kind of clubhouse thinking that gives us “playola” and reviews-for-sale in the first place. You don’t owe these sellouts anything, Hsu - hang them out to dry!
on January 5th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Oh, two more things…
(1) I feel safe in saying that Play Magazine is not on the take. Play is the way it is because Dave Halverson has the taste and critical discernment of an 11 year old fanboy drooling onto his Boba Fett t-shirt. But being a fool is different than being a crook.
(2) I seem to remember Jeff Green writing an EIC piece very similar to Shu’s in a past issue of CGW. Like Shu, Green refused to name names.
on January 6th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Shoe is gutless and is hoping that other people will do the dirty work that he refuses to do (ie, naming the names instead of just dipping his toe in the proverbial pool).
on January 8th, 2006 at 1:31 am
“Halo… Dungeon Siege… PGR….. Kameo… Tycoon games… Jade Empire… Conker…. Blinx…. Forza….
Gee I wonder what company makes average games that get an amazing amount of coverage and undeservedly high reviews…. ”
Actually, those gamer weren’t developed by a single company if that is what you were implying. For the comment about Jade Empire, it got the attention because Bioware is a innovative and respected developer, not because they are paying journalists Perhaps you have heard of some of their titles: Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR.
on January 8th, 2006 at 1:54 am
IvanTrembow,
Is it worth it for Shu to lose his job by naming names when he can achieve the same result by starting a discussion? It is up to the media watchdogs and readers to participate in this as well. Of course you don’t care if Shu loses his job. You want the names handed on a plate to you.
on January 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Lose his job? How would he lose his job? He’s not confessing that EGM is doing this.
on January 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Whoever thinks Shoe should have told all or shut up is just plain insane. Discussing a bad industry practice is one thing. Naming names is quite another. The former has no legal ramification while the latter does. Keep in mind that Shoe has no hard evidence. He has only speculation and anonymous informants, both of which are certainly enough to call the practice out, but neither of which will hold up in a libel suit. Personally, buying a cover doesn’t bother me. I don’t purchase magazines because of what is on the cover. Now, if they’re buying a favorable review, then that’s a whole other ball game. I use reviews to select which games I will drop $50 or $60 for. In my opinion, this is where integrity is crucial… but in the end, if a magazine is giving a bad game a good review, then it won’t take long for that magazine to become unreliable and I will have to move on. It won’t take more than a couple times for me to drop half a bill for a bad game before I decide I’m wasting money on the magazine. Has anyone ever read Harry Knowles site “Aint It Cool News.” While I don’t always agree with Harry’s reviews, one thing is for sure…, he doesn’t pull any punches. Still, Harry gets his share of private screenings and set calls so, apparently, some people respect brutal honesty. I know in one example, the movie Rollerball, Harry was flown to a private screening of the movie and after having watched the movie, Harry sat down and tore it to shreds in review. Why? Because the movie sucked. That is what I want to see in a review. As long as the editors remain true to that, then the rest is just a dog and pony show. IMHO.
on January 9th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I support Shoe and his editorial, but that’s only one of the major issues that’s causing me to view the game “journalism” field with growing contempt.
Besides magazines selling coverage, too many are putting mediocre games on pedestals in (sometimes months and months) of previews only to rip them to shreds during the actual reviews. The usual argument is that they can’t fairly criticize anything in a preview build because the game isn’t complete, but surely they see the problems that exist and wouldn’t pointing them out in the magazine put some (needed) pressure on the developers to fix said problems? The whole thing smacks of paid-for coverage, especially when some nameless game is the subject.
Like I said, I support Shoe’s editorial and I think many vg journalists need to start policing themselves and take some ethics courses if they want to be taken seriously. Many people are saying that not naming names starts a witch hunt, and while that may happen, it could also simply start an investigation that brings the corruption to light. In any case, if he’d named names then he would have been up for libel since he doesn’t have concrete evidence.
on January 9th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Well, the hype-and-trash cycle can also be explained in other ways–how many magazines will you sell running previews about the next “bland, boring, repetitive, buggy” game? So, it’s in the magazine’s best interest to make previews sound positive and exciting, even in slow months. Likewise, let’s not forget good old fashioned emotional manipulation–free trips, dinners, gifts, hugs from pretty girls, whatever it takes for a game company to get on the good side of a reporter.
Neither one of these is what I’d call good journalism (either “good” as in ethical or “good” as in quality), but they’re also more nebulous than outright “our cover is for sale” schemes. Unfortunately I think that makes them even more common. The game press could definitely benefit from a spotlight into some of those dark corners.
However, I don’t think this editorial really did that. In order for real change to happen, jobs need to be lost and entire publications need to burn, and a short “I’m so mad that unnamed other people do these things” editorial isn’t going to make that happen. That isn’t petty fighting, that’s a real war for integrity and if EGM’s house is as clean as they say it is, they only stand to benefit. I hope someone in the industry has the guts to name names and pull these people onto the mat. Sure, they’ll cry libel and make a big stink, but do they really want their hard drives to be subpoenaed?
on January 10th, 2006 at 9:53 am
And the whole civil rights movements started by one woman who refused to move to the back of a bus. It only requires a spark to start a blaze. This editorial, by itself, may not change the world of video game magazines, but it might just be the spark that ignites it all.
on January 10th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Well - this is a sticky issue and one I’m not surprised at in the least….
Are any of you? Really? Of course this kind of industry “payola” is real - just like it is in the music industry and the entertainment field in general. When huge amounts of money are at stake, you can bet there will be back door deals going down. As for exactly who Dan was talking about - obviously we don’t know, but if these outlets continue to conduct business this way, it will certainly taint gaming journalism overall. That’s clearly not a good thing.
As for myself, all I can say is that every word I’ve ever written about gaming in the 4 years I’ve been doing this has been from the heart (even when I lavished excited hyperbole all over something that ultimately turned out to be an undeserving stinker - I was genuinely excited by what I’d seen of the title at that point). I’ll just have to hope that the majority of my fellow journalists are behaving in the same manner.
It’s also easy to get caught up in this and start pointing the finger everywhere, but since excellence in games can be a very subjective thing, I think it’s hard to definitively accuse any particular media outlet of wrong doing based on their choices for cover stories or what titles they choose to heap praise upon, unless there’s concrete proof…
on January 10th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
“This editorial, by itself, may not change the world of video game magazines, but it might just be the spark that ignites it all.”
Well, it might be if people hadn’t been saying the same shit for years with nothing happening. And once again, if no one is called to account how will anythign ever change? “We’re watching!”, Hsu proclaims - refusing to tell us specifically who. So how will we recognize progress? When he writes another editorial in two years telling us that everything is fine.
on January 20th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Hsu didn’t say he didn’t have evidence.
He said his evidence was off the record.
And that makes a difference.
Nobody — absolutely nobody — can use off-record evidence in something that can be held liable, such as an editorial. It’s a logical fallacy to claim that “he says he can’t name names, therefore, he has no evidence”. Hsu can’t name names, because his sources (whom, we can presume, he wishes to continue being sources) could be traced and lose their jobs, and Hsu himself could be held liable for libel. And, as has been said, his job is editor, not whistleblower. There’s watchdog organizations for that — and this one has asked, in this very post, for information.
So don’t bitch and moan for the impossible.
He called attention to an issue we all suspected. (I mean, when there’ve been two separate Penny Arcade comics on the issue of buying reviews — some guy in a money hat a couple of years ago, and a table filling up with cash in front of Mario in 2005 — we can presume it’s been thought about.) Which is what he was supposed to do, if he wished to do so. An editorial is not the place to name names, it isn’t the place to get down in the trenches and start throwing tabloid-quality ****. It’s a place for an editor to air his or her opinion.
So don’t bitch and moan for the impossible.
Take a look at Hsu’s interview with Peter Moore. He’s not playing nice, and he doesn’t have to. To an outsider — and even to me, raised on games — video-game journalism has, for ages, looked like it’s been developing an old-boys club, a brass-rail you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours approach to doing business. Hsu’s taking a stand against that. He’s Editor-in-Chief for EGM; EiCs set policy, direction, and vision for their publications, and that’s exactly what he has done.
So don’t bitch and moan for the impossible, when the man is doing the possible.
Speaking as a journalism student in a foreign country — well done, Dan.
on January 20th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Any journalist should know you can’t be sued for Libel if what you have published is true.
If Shoe published names, and those named took him to court, then he’d have to prove it in court by using witnesses and so on. As witnesses against companies, those people who came forward would be protected from being fired from that company.
Well, that’s how it works in civilised countries… not sure how it works in the USA…
If he was telling the truth, then he could blow the whole story wide open, and actually get the industry to change.
As it stands, he’s done nothing at all.
on January 20th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
You can still be sued for the truth. A piece’s accuracy really has nothing to do with whether or not it’s libelous. Even if the piece is true, especially if it’s true, regardless of whether or not the accused have actually done things that damage their credibility. The statement *openly and publicly* damages their credibility, and thus provides basis for a libel case. You might defend, and it would go to court and such, and the success of your defense might depend on the witnesses and evidence you can produce to back up your claims.
However, the consequences I mentioned — job loss — would happen if there was a lawsuit brought against Dan and EGM at all, regardless of the case’s outcome. Journalists are incredibly conscious of the role that media plays, and how damaging an article can be; legal defense funds and so on abound in mainstream journalism. You can criticize the man for how he plays it, but you can’t criticize him for wishing to continue playing.
Like I said, the man’s doing the possible. Allow me to clarify this with saying that, even a month afterward, it’s still too soon to see how it plays out. “He’s done nothing at all” is a frivolous statement to make when neither results nor consequences have happened yet.
on January 21st, 2006 at 2:09 am
I think people should stop focusing on how this problem was brought to light. Whether or not you aprove of what he did or how he did it isn’t the issue. The point is it exists, and, whether you knew it did or not before Shoe’s editorial, it needs to be stopped. Is it his job to do what he did? No. Is it his responsability to name names? That’s open to opinion, but it is the job of watchdog groups (such as this site) to find out. So we should stop focusing on how it was exposed and who exposed it and get onto finding out what publications are responsible.
My opinion (which is based purely on observation and not on and insider information) is that the company which Shoe got some of his info from is Microsoft. I base this souly on a quote from the interview with Shoe, “his suspicions led him to contact a public relations representative from ‘a major game publisher… as big as they get.’” When I think of game publisher’s that are “as big as they get,” I think of Microsoft, the biggest game publisher from a financial perspective.
As for the offending media outlets, the only one I have a strong suspicion about is GameSpot.com. Since Shoe said in his blog that he is “not referring to… IGN [or] GameSpy,” the only other “very high-profile” gaming website I can think of is GameSpot. This website has had many questionably positive front page previews come out when advertising for the same game permiates the site, and when I say permiates I mean so far as to have the website themed about the game in question. As for their reviews, I have not personaly noticed anything odd about their scores that I can recall, but this may be due to the fact that reviews don’t hold much weight in my gaming decisions. To reiterate though, none of these statements are based in fact. They are only my oppionions and observations that may be (and most likely are) flawed.
on January 21st, 2006 at 3:30 am
Gamespot engages in ‘editorialized marketing.’
It’s different in the bigger world of so-called objective print media. A few very large publications, including the New York Times, were hemorraging subscriptions so they lied to their advertisers, claiming subscription rates were up and thus charging an unproportional ad fee. Trustworthy. Bias is rampant, polling is tampered, and op-eds and ‘analysis’ are touted as actual factual stories. This is not an ubiquitous inditement but it’s indisputable that some have agendas other than disseminating the news as accurately as possible.
Keep your eyes peeled.
on January 22nd, 2006 at 4:46 pm
First: I read most but not all of the comments posted.
Second: I am a gamer and have no connection with the gaming industry other than I buy games.
Third: I read Shoe’s editorial when it was published (I buy the mag, Shoe is just hot, and yes I am that strange animal, a female gamer)
Fourth: When I read the editorial, my reaction was, “So that explains what’s going on”.
I have long wondered why some games seem to get the lion’s share of media attention, only to find out *after* the game is published that it is in fact a dog of the worst kind.
Game companies do themselves no favors with this kind of activity. I bought one movie tie in game back in the NES days, and learned my lesson quick. Now I stick with companies and franchises I know well. Dragon Quest being a favorite of mine, as is Final Fantasy and Suikoden, and unfortunately for me Working Designs. But I rarely buy a game as soon as it is available anymore. I wait until it has been out about a month, and then I am usually able to find commentary that tells me the real story. In other words is this a dog or not?
Magazines also do themselves no favors by engaging in this activity. I buy a couple of gaming magazines (Game Informer is not among them). I buy the magazines I buy, because generally I find their information to be mostly accurate. I allow for some small measure of letting the industry hype turn your heads, but only a small measure.
Bottom line: My conservatism means I have never bought one of those *worst ever* games that are sometimes highlighted in all the gaming mags. But I own all the games I want to own. The only time I felt really let down by the industry was the Saturn debacle, something I make a point of remembering.
I am pleased to see you all discussing this issue and taking it seriously. I would hate for the Gaming media to go the way of mainstream media. Healthy debate, discussion and plenty of sunshine work wonders. From a gamer’s point of view, your goal should always be to provide us with the best information you have. Not to become shills for the gaming producers.
on January 23rd, 2006 at 6:30 am
Finally someone had the courage to speak up and what happened? small mind induhviduals start yelling “He didn’t name anyone, give us some evidence.” Come one people, wake up! He couldn’t have given any names exactly beacause he’d be in for a lawsuit. Here comes the implications… first it’s “editorial marketing” after that comes “review marketing” where you pump up the score “just wee bit up” beceus, the game isn’t that bad after all, you can’t exactly jump, but who needs jumping when you can move left and right?. after that it’s only one step forward to the point where you celebrate a game publishe because “they give so awsome games to fans” (read as crap)
Why don’t you open your eyes and see what’s going on? Or is reality too much to handle? Someone gives public a shock that wakes it up to reality and public decides that sleeping is better… typical of america
on January 30th, 2006 at 12:47 am
*”Josh Grummett said,
on January 20th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
You can still be sued for the truth. A piece’s accuracy really has nothing to do with whether or not it’s libelous. Even if the piece is true, especially if it’s true, regardless of whether or not the accused have actually done things that damage their credibility. The statement *openly and publicly* damages their credibility, and thus provides basis for a libel case. You might defend, and it would go to court and such, and the success of your defense might depend on the witnesses and evidence you can produce to back up your claims.
However, the consequences I mentioned — job loss — would happen if there was a lawsuit brought against Dan and EGM at all, regardless of the case’s outcome. Journalists are incredibly conscious of the role that media plays, and how damaging an article can be; legal defense funds and so on abound in mainstream journalism. You can criticize the man for how he plays it, but you can’t criticize him for wishing to continue playing.
Like I said, the man’s doing the possible. Allow me to clarify this with saying that, even a month afterward, it’s still too soon to see how it plays out. “He’s done nothing at all” is a frivolous statement to make when neither results nor consequences have happened yet.”*
I c/p’ed your reply Josh because your reply speaks volumes and warrants repeating. It’s probably one of the most objective and fair replies submitted. Especially the first paragraph:
“You can still be sued for the truth. A piece’s accuracy really has nothing to do with whether or not it’s libelous. Even if the piece is true, especially if it’s true, regardless of whether or not the accused have actually done things that damage their credibility. The statement *openly and publicly* damages their credibility, and thus provides basis for a libel case. You might defend, and it would go to court and such, and the success of your defense might depend on the witnesses and evidence you can produce to back up your claims.”
I think people really need to pay attention to those words. That’s truth. Well stated. ;)
on February 14th, 2006 at 3:18 am
The magazine is PS Extreme