320°

'Reviewers should PAY for games'- Renaud Charpentier, Creative Assembly

Taking douchebaggery to a whole new level in the midst of the full on 'perfect storm' that has engulfed Youtube following their recent 'Copyright Blitzkreig', a lead developer at Creative Assembly has gone on record to take the lunacy and bitter reactions one step closer to the edge of madness by claiming ALL videogame journalists should actually PAY the developer for their review copies, or is it just the ones who delivered a negative score?

Read Full Story >>
gamesmediapro.co.uk
Mikelarry3791d ago (Edited 3791d ago )

buhahahahahahahahah..... oh wait he was actually being serious BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT: you see what i find really funny is the ps4 and xbox one were created with the idea of sharing game videos with friends and the internet by making sharing easier and now is the time these so called developers want to kick up a fuss REALLY !!!!!

jimbobwahey3791d ago

I think making reviewers pay for the games they review might actually improve the review process. I mean the expected result is that because they paid for the game, they'd be more critical? I sometimes feel that reviewers give games too easy a ride just because they got the game for free, so they excuse problems that anybody who paid for the game would not.

Besides, it would also put reviewers in the position of then having to deal with whatever launch day problems the game has, rather than playing games in a closed environment where the multiplayer works flawlessly because it's via LAN rather than online servers.

I think it's far too common these days that because of my above points, games get scores that are far too generous.

Mikelarry3791d ago (Edited 3791d ago )

while i see where you are coming from and your suggestion makes sense this same logic would then need to be applied to alot of other consumer goods we currently make use of that would mean only the well known will be reviewed as no-one will be willing to give the unknown brands a chance since they can only review a few now have to pay for the product.

Bigpappy3791d ago

I believe that if they pay for the games, you should get a better review. Their is something about paying for things that makes you feel more attached. Plus it feels less like their are trying to please publishers.

admiralvic3791d ago

"I think making reviewers pay for the games they review might actually improve the review process. "

Fun fact and completely off the record, a lot of sites don't get every game for free and rarely know what or when we will get a game. When I was working for a decent / good site (100,000+ views a month), we had games come at completely different rates.

Ni no Kuni came a week after release.
Neverdead was a week after release.
Mugen Souls came 2 months before release.
We never got Twisted Metal, Starhawk, New Super Mario Bros. U, Animal Crossing, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, Persona 4 Arena, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 Plus, and many many many more games.

"I mean the expected result is that because they paid for the game, they'd be more critical? I sometimes feel that reviewers give games too easy a ride just because they got the game for free, so they excuse problems that anybody who paid for the game would not."

Sadly, it doesn't work that way. What typically happens is one of two things. Either the game gets more "genuine" praise, because the person reviewing it had to buy it out of pocket. At the same time, it's also possible it will get more hate because they had to pay for it. So while it might not have been a 2 - 4 out of 10, the simple act of buying it left such a bitter taste in their mouth that they had to take it out on the game and the score is so much lower. In the end, you will never find a fair line, nor will you find people (consumers or reviewers) willing to overlook massive problems because they like one or more aspects of the game.

admiralvic3791d ago

"Besides, it would also put reviewers in the position of then having to deal with whatever launch day problems the game has, rather than playing games in a closed environment where the multiplayer works flawlessly because it's via LAN rather than online servers. "

Most reviewers, at least the people below the "professional" IGN level, play largely the same game as everyone else. I reviewed for a site and got many review copies and I can tell you I rarely saw a game before release and if I did, it was extremely rare to see it more than 5 days before release. All of these games were retail games (more or less) and played no different than a copy I could buy in stores.

"I think it's far too common these days that because of my above points, games get scores that are far too generous."

The issue is how the community acts towards people that think contrary to them. Case in point, I thought Tearaway was way too short, needed more levels / content and probably should have been a $15 - $20 digital title. However, there are many people that agree with the 8+ review scores being accurate, even though they paid $40 dollars for it, versus the reviewer probably paying nothing. I am also sure there will be people who disagree with this comment simply because I didn't praise Tearaway, which many Vita gamers consider to be the Vita GOTY and some consider it the best title on the actual platform. I mean, the game is about 2 - 3 hours long with almost no replay value with a $40 dollar MSRP, yet it is averaging an 87 on Meta with a 9 average across 162 user reviews.

We're getting to a point where smaller websites don't want to step on toes (because that cost them views, money, status, and perks), which is enough to kill the site. The average site, not places like IGN, but a place like NowGamer (they're on Metacritic) don't offer writers a lot of perks. I've been doing this for 3+ years and outside of free review copies here and there, I've easily lost $1,100+ dollars writing for a gaming news site. There isn't a lot of money to be made and it's something people typically do because they enjoy doing it. This is why you see a lot of garbage editorials about top 10 this or flame bate articles, because these sites need to turn some sort of profit.

Even when I was working for my last site, you had to be the top contributor of the month to make a cent. Even then, which on average was 60 - 80 articles, the reward was a mere $60 dollars. This is roughly 1 day of work at minimum wage and it was entirely possible I could be 2 articles short of the minimum and end up with nothing.

SilentNegotiator3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

Jim Sterling made an episode on why that is a completely ridiculous suggestion:
http://www.escapistmagazine...
Reviewers could never afford that.

It would be great to see less reviewers give every game an 8+ because they paid for it themself and have realistic expectations, but then reviews would be infrequent from the same great reviewers, day one and beyond only, and less frequent.

Wingsfan243790d ago

As a reviewer myself, I can't say I agree with you. When you look at it from our perspective, readers want reviews of a lot of games ha, and with the amount of games some sites review, that'd be a ridiculous amount of money to spend and in the end, it wouldn't work and there'd be a lot less reviews and games being missed because of money issues.

I do see your point in thinking that way, but I'd be careful to generalize all reviewers in the same boat. Personally when I get a review copy I look at my readers as customers and want to be as honest about a product as I can be and want them to take our opinions credibly. That way they come back to read our other reviews and know we provide honest feedback, and more often than not, the developers really appreciate the feedback on their games so they can improve next time. Although, that's normally the way smaller developers look at it.

And as other comments said, we normally get the same game the consumers get, with the same bugs and patches you have to install.

So, all in all, it's really based on which reviewers you trust and opinions matches up with yours I guess. Obviously there's always different opinions, but as I've said numerous times, reviews should be about the quality of a game over whether you liked it or not.

CoryHG3790d ago

not me. i started out reviewing by paying for the games. i don't give good scores for the simple fact i received the game. Credibility is important to me.

Prime1573790d ago

I agree. If they get a game for free they go easy on it. If they have to pay they feel the pain of all of us, but they are jaded because it wasn't free.

Median income in America (#1 @ $14bill market) is ~36,000 a year... if you had to buy a game on that income you'd appreciate it more...

I don't know, I think part of it is that people need to learn to "shop" reviews to find their own interests...

At the same time, you get well received games like journey that cause a studio to falter...

Edit: I'm talking to myself.. I screwed up as I contradict myself... I guess this is complicated...

Anon19743790d ago

I'm not sure this is necessarily the answer, but it certainly beats the trend of reviewers demanding free copies and money for their review "services". Paid reviews are the norm for mobile game sites (trust me on that one).

Personally, I think if your review site is worth anything you don't need to charge for reviews.

Runa2163790d ago

Clearly you've never, ever been a game reviewer.

Athonline3790d ago

If they start paying for their games, be more transparent what they bought, what they got for free it would be great for me.

Reviewers should get a couple of days for single-player in advance and only review multiplayer games post-launch.

Over the last years I kept coming across more and more "professional" webpages, biased, exploiting console wars and trends, misinforming people. Such sites in my opinion just hurt the communities, as they split gamers and report news/ review based on personal believes.

Even this article is extremely biased. Journalism should be neutral, stating facts and not personal opinions. For personal opinions, there are blogs, Facebook, Twitter and your good-old grandma, who will agree with you whatever you say.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3790d ago
snipermk03790d ago

@AdmiralVic: Excellent post. I totally agree with you. I used to work for a gaming publication too and more often than not, we had to pay for games out of our pockets. I don't know why everyone of the common folk think that game reviewers are just sitting on a bed of free games.

Eonjay3791d ago

Thank God for PS4 streaming. Now I can get reviews from actual people and not just a select group of people who decide what to hype.

MidnytRain3791d ago

You could do that before PS4 streaming...

admiralvic3791d ago

"not just a select group of people who decide what to hype."

Indeed, the select group of people with $100 or so dollars to spend to buy a HDPVR.

Prime1573790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

I noticed you got more disagrees. I really don't think those people understand what $100 means to the median (edit: 50% Mark, yes, I do think i have to explain median to a "large" minority of people) household income.

I've lived on both sides of that line... the <40k line sucks, especially when supporting another human. You have to decide if you want that hdpvr or that $800 tv, or that game, or that sofa, or those phone accessories, or that phone plan, cable plan, which console you want, which graphics card (all similar to your monthly rent and expenses, and equal to 2% of your yearly income).

TheGamingHeretic3791d ago

Unfortunately, This fight is as old as time. It also is amazing to me how developers can be so short sighted to think that reviewers are out to get them. I understand the emotion that is tied to putting your heart and soul into something. However, if it's bad - it's bad. That's just the way it is. Even reviewers like 'Angry Joe' (from The Angry Joe Show) aren't out to destroy games. You can truly tell he loves it when a game is awesome.

Also, speaking on behalf of a brand new Game Review Website - we have to buy the majority of the games we review. Only the really really big ones get it free, especially from AAA titles.

Hicken3790d ago

Well, if you're already paying, it's nothing different, right? What would be your complaint, since it would put bigger sites in the same boat as you?

Some reviewers aren't out to destroy games... but some are. Tom Chick is one, William Usher is another(though I think he's just a massive troll), so's Arthur Gies over at Polygon, and I'm sure there are plenty of others that could be named.

To me, too many reviewers have become opinionated and full of themselves. They think they're more important than they are, and it's led to a rather crappy reviewing ecosystem(which is pretty in-line with gaming journalism, in general). Sessler's ranting prior to the PS4 release is indicative of that attitude.

Let em pay for the games. What's it gonna hurt them? Maybe, as someone else said, they'll be more critical- and thus, more fair- since they have to invest in these games just like us normal people.

TheGamingHeretic3790d ago

I would counter that the reasoning is that by allowing free games, then critics are able to do more reviews and give more press to both good and bad games. It doesn't limit their ability to expand.

The only people that requiring full payment of games would hurt are the smaller critics that most people consider to be 'honest'. IGN would not be to badly impacted by this, nor would any other major outlet. However smaller outlets (such as The Gaming Heretic) most assuredly would and you would just have even less 'true journalism'.

It decreases the ability of smaller organizations to do reviews and thus hurts gaming overall as only bigger outlets can afford to give their reviews because they can afford it.

Prime1573790d ago

I think there is an issue we aren't seeing. Very, very few critics get THE MAJORITY free.

In that being said, wouldn't you go into a game with a bias because said publisher or studio made you buy to review?

@thegamingheretic, "The only people that requiring full payment of games would hurt are the smaller critics that most people consider to be 'honest'. "

I disagree simply because those smaller critics already pay for most of their games. Time, money, and notoriety...

XiSasukeUchiha3791d ago

WTF damn what wrong with this world , it's going upside, 180 , and over the top hopefully if this true make it good pay.

B1663r3791d ago

Reviewers should disclose if they got their game and hardware for free in addition to how they get paid.

In addition to that, PS4 game reviewers should indicate if they went to the PS4 press only launch event, and received a 3 night vacation in a 5 star hotel, and the monogrammed PS4, basically if they took part in the extravagant gifting that Sony engaged in right before the launch of the new consoles.

Show all comments (65)
240°

Why Xbox believes it must cut costs and close studios

Companies, particularly public companies like Microsoft, need to grow.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
gold_drake9h ago

i mean its pretty simple, they spent close to 30 billion in acquiring activision, they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen.

its just shit that because of MS's miscalculation alot of people lost their jobs.

Jingsing6h ago

This is exactly what many people said would happen including the CMA and FTC. Lies lies and more lies and they allowed a $69 billion buy out to happen.

gold_drake5h ago

oh yeh it was 70 billion. that was my bad haha even worse.

thesoftware7305h ago(Edited 5h ago)

gold,

You can't be serious, right?

Do you think that MS thought they would make 80bill in a year & Half? They haven't even released titles under MS yet, lol.

But in fact, that A/B revenue is already paying off, look at the last earnings call. That $80 billion is long-term money, my guy, no sane person/company would think they would make that back in any short-term situation, it's a long-term investment.

Let's play silly then. If MS's reason for laying off staff and closing studios was due(which it really was not) to the A/B deal, tell me what Sony's reason was for past studio closures, the recent 900-person layoffs, closing Sony London, shutting down Dreams, and closing Japan Studio? Zipper? Psygnosis? cuts at all their internal studios.

Keep in mind, you are claiming MS's reason is because of the A/B deal; please explain Sony's reason.

Hofstaderman5h ago

You actually still defending them? Sheesh.....

gold_drake5h ago

this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt.

and of course not, but im pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. they didnt, and closed off some studios.

its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case.

romulus235h ago(Edited 5h ago)

(It really was) due to the Activision Blizzard deal and the loss of physical sales due to gamepass. You keep bringing up Sony in all your posts about this, stop deflecting and trying to change the topic, this is about MS and what they are doing.

BehindTheRows5h ago

Has nothing to do with Sony. Stay on topic.

notachance4h ago

once in a while you see someone too invested in their make-believe console war that everything happened has to be connected to said war…

a bit of banter between fans is normal, this crusade you’re doing now isn’t.

Chevalier4h ago

Wow idiotic. You bring up very old closures not that there haven't been recent ones from Playstations, but, seriously stop deflecting. This has NOTHING to do with Playstation.

Does Playstation got $3 trillion behind them and daddies wallet? No they don't so stop making a fool of yourself.

Xbox has never been profitable really and they just keep losing money so between their worst hardware sales, terrible 3rd party sales and now terrible 1st party sales.

Gamepass numbers that are no longer being announced shows their numbers after 3 years of missed targets has flatlined. Plus their recent gains up to 34 million were ONLY because they folded Gold members in too. Absolutely take your idiotic rhetoric out of here. Keep on topic without deflecting.

S2Killinit4h ago

Ayayayay with these xbox/MS excuses.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4h ago
thesoftware7303h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Drake,

"this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt."

You are correct that it's not an MS Vs Sony Topic, but when exaggeration and imagination mix from a one-sided social group, similar examples are needed to ground radical thoughts; in this instance, the example was that shutting down 3,4,5, even 6 studios during a restructure/ buyout/acquisition is not some anomaly(it can suck) that has to be dissected or spell doom and gloom.

"But I'm pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. They didn't, and they closed off some studios."

But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue.

"its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case."

The fact that they did make money, kinda throws this out the window, and besides, you don't wake up and say, hey let's close a studio, you look at the output, you look at the dev as a whole, the long term and short term, you weigh it against all other studios and goals, you keep key members, ect..then you close if they are the weakest links...which by MS analysis they were.

Again, I will make a small Sony comparison, just so some of you can understand and see past the bias; Insomniac, ND, and Bungie have made some of the best games ever created, yet Sony saw fit to cut jobs in every of these studios, even tho Insomniac & ND are the biggest producers of PS games, leagues ahead better than Tango and Arkane, yet, they saw cuts, mind you, while being the TOP produces of PS first party. They were told to cut costs, and more jobs may be on the line, and Bungie is being threatened by a hostile Sony takeover. Put that in perspective, as I know that layoffs and dev closures are different, but if the best of the best is getting cut off, it is less than surprising, that lesser studios are closing.

@Cheva,
My response fits well with your comments as well. You even went on to prove that the dev closures are not just due to A/B acquisition. Then you point out Sony has less money than MS, inferring that MS should keep devs open that they see as lesser earners, while Sony having less money makes it okay to close them. lol...it doesn't work that way.

gold_drake2h ago

im not reading all of that. u have ur opinion, i have mine.

thats rly it.

but this aint sony vs ms.

ApocalypseShadow2h ago

You're trying to compare a 100 billion company to a company that has 3 TRILLION worth. SIE has to live or die on their own. And in turn, PlayStation has helped the main company again and again. Sony has to balance out what is working and not working in the company.

While Xbox has Daddy Warbucks footing the bill to keep the platform afloat. They have been bleeding money from Nvidia hardware in the OG Xbox, the RROD fiasco, the attempted 2013 DRM nonsense and the lies about being the most powerful console in the world and the losses of paying out millions to prop up a service hoping it catches on with enough subscribers to justify its existence.

They're not comparable if Xbox isn't allowed to live or die by its actions. It's subsidized. Revenue isn't profit. And if they were profiting on their own, they wouldn't be closing developers. If they were profiting, they wouldn't need Daddy Warbucks spending 80 to 100 billion buying up 3rd party publishers to sustain a loss leading platform.

They stopped announcing game sales, stopped announcing hardware sales, stopped announcing game pass subscribers, they are putting games on their competitors platforms but you're telling us that they are doing great even after killing jobs and closing developers at Xbox.

Stop drinking the Kool aid. You're drunk.

anast6h ago

They are going to use AI for a large portion of the game development process. Upper management need bonuses and the shareholders need more money. So, people will lose their jobs.

Skuletor5h ago

Maybe they were already using AI to make business decisions, which would explain why they closed Hi-Fi Rush's studio, then said they need more games like Hi-Fi Rush not long after that announcement.

Crows905h ago(Edited 5h ago)

They shouldn't have bought any studios. Some is okay...but they went on a shopping spree...stupid

Einhander19724h ago

The better question is why did Microsoft buy publishers for a service they were subsidizing they knew couldn't support.

And why are so many websites trying to make people feel sorry for Microsoft instead of truly criticizing the fact they are closing studios and killing jobs that would have been fine if Microsoft themselves hadn't gotten involved.

Quit feeling sorry for Microsoft and start feeling sorry for the industry and the all the gamers who are actually losing out.

THIS IS MICROSOFTS FAULT.

RNTody4h ago

The first thing that happens after any major acquisition or merger is a consolidation of the whole new portfolio, which includes cutting any excess, bloat or portfolios that don't fit the larger MO of the big boy. So far, it's been par for the course with Microsoft and that's why gamers have been so against this acquisition. Tango Gameworks is the beginning. You think Microsoft wants to pay to keep small timers like Ninja Theory in business?

There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Microsoft will improve any of these studios, but plenty to suggest that they will get rid of what they don't need and hold onto the IP. The real agenda of the acquisition was always to acquire The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Fallout, Call of Duty, Candy Crush etc. that will create millions in passive revenue stream for Microsoft regardless of where the games release. Microsoft simply wants their cut.

Because of Games Pass Microsoft has no interest in investing in new IP which is risky and requires creative talent they can neither nurture nor manage. Game Pass has also not grown in the way Microsoft expected it to, even post acquisitions. Therefore the logical thing to do, without serious money makers to release, is to cut as much cost as possible.

Show all comments (30)
100°

Former Dragon Age lead writer David Gaider pours scorn on EA's AI dreams.

"They want you to believe the devs under them are super stoked to work generative AI into their processes," continued Gaider, "but I assure you what they took as excitement was really a veiled wail of despair not unlike the time that team was informed of their new 'really cool' live service mandate.".

LordoftheCritics2d ago

Publishers see gaming as another stock market.

isarai2d ago

I think anyone with some common sense knew this, im glad i don't support their games anymore, what a sh!t company.

Psychonaut852d ago

Friends don’t let friends buy EA or Ubisoft.

Chocoburger2d ago

I said this yesterday. AI isn't what we want when it comes to crafting artistry. Alas, these soulless corporate morons don't care about their work, only about cutting corners as much as possible.

120°

Phil Spencer and the Battle for Xbox’s Soul

Has the rapid growth of Xbox made the ship too heavy? Following the closures of Tango Gameworks, Arkane Austin, and Roundhouse, we explore what the future of Xbox could look like.

LG_Fox_Brazil3d ago

This ship was never meant to sail, this ship was made from the get go to sink as fast as possible. It almost feels that they want to lower the standards of quality in the industry so that they can fit in

rlow12d ago

I disagree, Xbox from the get go innovated and changed the industry. They did a lot of firsts and standardized a lot of others. It wasn’t till the beginning of the Xbox1 era that things started to go south.

Stevonidas2d ago

Yep, although I’d argue it started going to shit when they tried to hock Kinect on their audience instead of continuing to invest in their studios and IPs. 2001-2010 Xbox was peak gaming, though.

rlow12d ago

@Stevonidas
I agree they never should have focused on it after the 360 era. But you do have to remember they were faked out by the huge volumes of Kinects sold. To quote info on Wikipedia, “Project Natal, It was first released on November 4, 2010, and would go on to sell eight million units in its first 60 days of availability.” So if your Xbox and see these huge sales on a peripheral where are you going to put some money? Criticism in hindsight is worthless…..if only we could all see our future. In other wards they had no way of knowing. Plus they had engagement numbers and a lot of signs pointed to people wanting it.

Their biggest mistake wasn’t the Kinect, but unlike Sony after the PS3 debacle. They didn’t double on down on exclusive good games. The other huge mistake was letting Call of Duty go to Sony.

Hedstrom2d ago

Phil wants Xbox to be as soulless as him!

Tacoboto2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Xbox has no soul and Phil has no confidence, and it's impossible to say either do when they killed Tango and Arkane Austin.

Everything they've said since has only made them look worse to a point that they're actually less competent than Embracer.

Markdn2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Whe you release something like the series S and expect it not to hurt your business model, and developers have to have parity with games. Then you know Microsoft don't care. Series s is the final nail that broke developers,

Show all comments (12)